Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE

Account ordered,
relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1969.—[Mr. Crosland.]

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. May I ask whether the Order Paper is correct—that the accounts of the United Kingdom's overseas trade for the year 1969 are really to be laid before the House? This would seem a remarkable degree of prescience. Is this the case or is it that there is a misprint?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot interpret the Order Paper. The hon. Member must do so himself.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Speaker: I was asked a point of order by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) about the Trade Return. I am advised by the Table that the year 1969 in the Motion is quite correct. The Report is moved for in advance of the year to enable the Board of Trade to begin producing the required accounts on a monthly basis from next January.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Naval Dockyards (Review)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence which local authorities have been officially consulted during the present review of Royal Naval dockyards and their future.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): None, Sir.

Mr. Judd: Is my hon. Friend aware that for the whole world of dockyard communities, such as that in my own constituency, it is really most important that they should not be presented with a fait accompli by the Ministry and that proper consultation with those communities should take place?

Dr. Owen: The social and industrial implications of possible changes in the dockyard organisation are being fully taken into account, and full consultation is going on between Government Departments. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the normal channels of communication between the Government and the regional planning councils' chairmen will also be used.

Dame Joan Vickers: May I ask why, since I gave evidence before one of the Committees dealing with dockyard technical colleges, I am not allowed to receive any information?

Dr. Owen: That does not arise out of this Question. It is not related to the dockyard review but the report on the dockyard technical colleges.

Western Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (British Contribution)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the United States Government's recent publication of the numbers of deliverable nuclear weapons in the possession of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, details of which are in his possession, he will give the details of the additional British contribution to the Western nuclear superiority over the Warsaw Pact Powers.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The British contribution to the collective Western strategic nuclear deterrent has until recently been provided entirely by the V-bomber force. As the Polaris force comes into service it will progressively take over this rôle.

Mr. Brooks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but does he have any evidence to support the accuracy of Mr. Mark Clifford's statistics, particularly in relation to the U.S.S.R.? Were consultations carried out with N.A.T.O. members before these top secret details were disclosed publicly?

Mr. Healey: The nuclear deterrent strength of the U.S.S.R. is, I suppose, top secret in the Soviet Union, but it is not necessarily top secret in other countries which found they had information on it; but the information given by Mr. Clifford has been generally available to N.A.T.O. for some time.

Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the Government will renegotiate the Nassau agreement as promised by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Healey: No, not now.

Persian Gulf (Withdrawal of British Forces)

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the run down of British forces in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he now estimates the withdrawal from the Gulf will start and be completed.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state to what extent British forces are being reduced in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Healey: The withdrawal of British forces from the Persian Gulf will be completed by the end of 1971. Initial steps to effect this withdrawal are already being taken.

Mr. Jackson: Can the Secretary of State say what part he believes the Trucial Oman Scouts may play as British forces are run down?

Mr. Healey: I hope very much that the Trucial Oman Scouts will play some role in the forces of the units of the Arab Emirates.

Mr. Marten: If the Gulf States are not properly organised defence-wise by the time withdrawal is due to be completed, have the Government got a contingency plan till such time as they are properly organised?

Mr. Healey: The British Government do not intend to maintain commitments in this part of the world after our withdrawal is concluded by the end of 1971.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Secretary of State aware that I found in the Gulf this

autumn that the keenest supporters of the Government's policy for withdrawal are the ordinary Service men, separated as they are from their families [Interruption.]—this is an absolute fact which can be confirmed—and that they say, and I ask, why wait three years if we are to move?

Mr. Healey: The Government believe that we must give the local countries, particularly those to which we have present commitments, some opportunity to reorganise their forces before our withdrawal. I am glad to say that this was very well reported, if I may say so, in an article in last Sunday's Sunday Times —that more progress has been made in the last nine months towards reaching a viable political arrangement in the Gulf than had been made in the last twenty years.

Mr. Ramsden: The Secretary of State did not really answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Is not the position this, that if successful arrangements for local defence are concluded between the Sheikhdoms we may or we may not have a title to stay, but if they are not concluded the Government will certainly be obliged to stay?

Mr. Healey: I have already made it clear that the Government have reached agreement with the Ruler of Kuwait on the termination of the British defence arrangement.

Northamptonshire Yeomanry

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the remaining units of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): This title is now borne only by "A" Company (Northamptonshire Yeomanry), the Northamptonshire Regiment (Territorial). When this Regiment disbands, its title may be preserved in the way explained in my statement of 28th November, by being conferred on a cadre.—[Vol. 774, c. 739–48.]

Mr. Marten: Would the Minister consider re-forming the Northamptonshire Yeomanry as a squadron based on the county, with another two squadrons based


on the two neighbouring counties, so that the three squadrons can form a three-counties regiment and so keep the yeomanry spirit of those people in those counties who long to serve in a yeomanry regiment?

Mr. Reynolds: I fail to see how that will be possible within the plan recently announced.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in 1939 the Northamptonshire Yeomanry was expanded from one squadron into two very fine regiments? Would he not consider it prudent to keep it in existence, even in a very small form, in case a similar expansion is needed in future?

Mr. Reynolds: What the hon. Member has just said applied to pretty well every Territorial unit in the country in 1938.

Army Reserves

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Army reserves.

Mr. Reynolds: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement on 28th November.—[Vol. 774; c. 739–48.]

Mr. Campbell: Do the Government propose to extend the commitment of any of the 160,000 men who would otherwise be released from the Army General Reserve in June 1969?

Mr. Reynolds: I have nothing to add on that point to the statement which I made on the 28th, namely, that I shall be making a statement on it in due course.

Mr. Crawshaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on something which he did not answer on Monday on the cadres of eight men. In what circumstances does be visualise these being expanded, and what categories of men would be called into these cadres?

Mr. Reynolds: The principle role of the cadres is to support designated TAVR II units with whom they will be working. Once that task is finished, after mobilisation they will be available for any other military purpose for which they are required, but their main task is to support the TAVR II.

Mr. Ramsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist us all by confirming that these tongue-twisting categories among the voluntary reserves, which we all find so difficult, need no longer be bothered about, because all units now in the voluntary reserve, including the cadres, will form part of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve?

Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman is almost right; there will be two categories. People tend to forget Category 4 in which there are a number of unusual types of units. So far as the tongue-twisting side is concerned, there were three categories before 1967.

Mediterranean (N.A.T.O. Naval Forces)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of the carrier to be added to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Healey: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration informed the House on 14th November, an aircraft carrier will alternate with a commando ship or an assault ship in providing an almost continuous large ship presence in the Mediterranean from January, 1969. The rôle of all three ships will be to make a major contribution to the forces immediately available on the southern flank of N.A.T.O.—[Vol. 773, c. 146–7.]

Mr. Campbell: Will the carrier alternating in the Mediterranean be able to carry fixed-wing aircraft after 1971?

Mr. Healey: After the carrier force phases out in 1972, there will be no carrier in the Mediterranean. The amphibious force by that time will be permanently stationed in the area.

Mr. Brooks: Does the Mediterranean include the Black Sea?

Mr. Healey: Not for these purposes.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the commitment of ships of the Royal Navy to the Mediterranean in the foreseeable future.

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of S: ate for Defence what action he is taking to strengthen the naval forces of the United Kingdom on the southern flank of: he North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration on 14th November, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).—[Vol. 773, c. 146–7.]

Mr. Cronin: But are not the Soviet forces in the Mediterranean far too small to justify any increased commitment there? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the real danger is that, in the foreseeable future, the Soviet Union might establish an air force presence in Egypt or Algeria and that the correct way of dealing with that would be through diplomatic and economic measures?

Mr. Healey: The tone of that supplementary question is almost exactly the opposite of the tone of my hon. Friend's previous one, to an almost identical Question. It is, of course, true that there is no military action by the West which could influence the desire of the Soviet Union to put air forces into Egypt or Algeria, or the readiness of the Egyptian or Algerian Government to receive those forces. I am glad to say that there is no current evidence available to me that the Soviet Union has any such intention. On the other hand, the increase in Soviet naval activity, of a seasonal nature, as we have made clear, in the last year or two has required a certain increase, particularly in the long term reconnaissance capability of N.A.T.O. forces in the Mediterranean. I am very glad to say that the British Government are making a major contribution to the increase in this reconnaissance capability.

Captain W. Elliot: Is it the Government's opinion that the southern flank of N.A.T.O. rests on the Mediterranean regardless of changing circumstances?

Mr. Healey: It is true that the Mediterranean is to the south of Europe, and that is likely to remain so for a very long time.

Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it is an adequate use of re-

sources to spend £30 million on refitting "Ark Royal" for only about two years' use, or is he now planning on a longer period?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I agree that this might well seem an odd decision, but I am not prepared to expose our forces to the risk of being without this type of cover before we have provided the type of capability that we will need when the carrier goes. For that reason, in order to make the general saving possible through the phasing out of the carrier force in 1972, it is necessary to maintain a credible and effective military force up to that date, and the refit of "Ark Royal" is one necessary means of doing that.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: We all appreciate the strengthening of the southern flank of N.A.T.O. and the presence of ships in the Mediterranean, but is it not wasteful to use an aircraft carrier? Is this not an area where shore-based aircraft can carry out this reconnaissance, thus releasing the carrier for other parts of the world where it may be invaluable and essential?

Mr. Healey: As I made clear at the time of the original announcement, the aircraft carrier will not be continuously in the Mediterranean but will fill in the gaps there when an assault or commando ship cannot be there. The periods during the next few years when a carrier will be in the Mediterranean are comparatively short. I myself strongly share the view of the American admiral quoted in a Times interview this morning that a visible capability in the Mediterranean is an important counter to the visible capability provided by the Soviet Union. In this respect, the aircraft carrier has a unique value.

Captain Elliot: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory and frivolous nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice must be given in the conventional way.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what capability is being planned to enable the Royal Navy to counteract the Soviet Navy's cruise missiles.

Dr. David Owen: Besides direct engagement of the missile ship, the Royal Navy's counter to cruise missiles will be provided by the Sea Slug surface-to-air missile system and by the new close range Sea Wolf and medium range Sea Dart systems now under development. Electronic countermeasures against this form of attack will also be available.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these cruise missiles have a range of 300 plus miles and, since they are air controlled in the initial stages, is it not vital for the Navy to have control of the air space within a reasonable range of its ships?

Dr. Owen: I am satisfied that the Royal Navy is being provided with the most effective defence against missile attack, and support for Her Majesty's ships subject to such attack would be available from fixed-wing aircraft operated from shore bases after the carriers phase out, and from fleet submarines.

Canberra Replacement

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Canberra replacement to enter service.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): The tasks undertaken by the Canberras will be taken over by the Buccaneer and the Vulcan, which are already in service, and in the later 1970s by an advanced combat aircraft.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that had the TSR2 not been cancelled by the Government in a Budget statement it would have been in service this year, even on the Prime Minister's most pessimistic calculations? Is he satisfied that the R.A.F. can go on with no proper low-level all-weather strike capability, in view of the undertakings given by the Foreign Secretary and the threats to Russia in N.A.T.O. recently?

Mr. Morris: As the House is well aware, this is well-trodden ground. The Royal Air Force would have preferred an aircraft like the TSR2 or the F111, but as a low-level strike aircraft the Buccaneer is very good indeed and represents a substantial advance on the Canberra, and the hon. Member should accept that.

Mr. Robert Howarth: What is the estimated cost of providing an all-British Canberra replacement?

Mr. Morris: If my hon. Friend is referring to the advanced combat aircraft, we are now in the middle of discussions on that, and I have nothing to add to the statement made recently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Merchant Shipping (Defence)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements he is making in plans for the future defence of British merchant shipping; and whether he will make a statement.

Dr. David Owen: Measures for merchant ship protection are under constant review and the situation is discussed regularly with shipowners in the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does the Minister appreciate the tremendous concern among ship-owners and service planners on the extent of this problem? Will he consider, as a constructive suggestion, that selected merchant ships should be gradually fitted with platforms from which helicopters can operate in emergency?

Dr. Owen: We will consider all constructive suggestions, particularly those from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of recent Press reports of foreign ships in and about the North Sea what are the Government doing to increase the strength of the protection squadron there?

Dr. Owen: We have a very adequate protection squadron which is constantly at sea, and we have had no complaints that they are not carrying out their duties satisfactorily.

Service Pensions

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now given consideration to raising the level of pre-1956 service pensions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Reynolds: We have been considering the problems of the older pensioners for some time, and any action we take will come within the context of


a Pensions (Increase) Measure. I would therefore refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General on 27th November to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes.—[Vol. 774, c. 117.]

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: When the promised pensions increase Bill appears, will the Minister bear in mind the pledges made by his party when seeking election that the purchasing power of pensions would not be eroded?

Mr. Reynolds: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait for the Bill, he will then see what is in it.

Anglo-German Multi-purpose Aircraft

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the project for the Anglo-German multi-purpose military aircraft.

Mr. Healey: The position reached by the United Kingdom, Germany, Holland and Italy on a multi-role combat aircraft project, was explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology in reply to Questions on 27th November, 1968. I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 774, c. 469–70.]

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is it not time that the Minister of Defence took urgent action to fill the gap which will appear in the Air Force defences in view of the cancellation of the TSR2 and the misjudgment by the Government over the Phantom and the F111?

Mr. Healey: The misjudgment on the Phantom was the previous Government's decision to produce the 1154 as a maritime aircraft before they discovered that the law of gravity applied to such aircraft as well as to land aircraft. If I may answer the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we have, as I have told the House repeatedly, been working continuously on this problem for the last 12 months, but we are convinced that it is highly desirable that we should seek to fill the gap in common with our European allies in filling a similar gap in their own air forces. We have made substantial pro-

gress in this direction, and I hope that the feasibility study will be completed within a month from now.

Mr. Rippon: Will the Secretary of State now answer the Question which I put to him in the debate on Monday to which he did not reply, as to whether or not there is any truth in the report that there are two designs, one aircraft to be built in this country and a different one in Germany? Will he confirm whether or not this is true, and also answer the question put earlier by my hon. Friend as to whether in any circumstances we would consider going ahead with this aircraft ourselves, if necessary on our own?

Mr. Healey: Of course we would consider going ahead on our own if it were impossible to produce a common European aircraft, but I have every hope that we shall succeed in the venture. On the first question, the Jaguar aircraft is being produced in Britain and France in five versions, and it is being produced 33 months after development started. This is an example of what can be done by collaboration between countries. There will no doubt be more than one version of the multi-role combat aircraft as well; indeed, the name multi-role combat aircraft rather suggests that there might be more than one version.

R.A.F. Station, Bovingdon

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his detailed proposals for the future of Bovingdon Royal Air Force Station.

Mr. Reynolds: As already announced, R.A.F., Bovingdon, will close early in 1969. It is not yet certain that there is no further defence requirement for the airfield and therefore it is not possible to make a detailed statement about the future of Bovingdon at this stage. If the airfield itself is disposed of, certain peripheral sites containing married quarters may be retained.

Mr. Allason: Will there be satisfactory arrangements to protect Service property when the station closes, and will the Minister bear in mind the offer of the local authority to safeguard at least some of the Service installations from vandalism?

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman in fact wrote to me about this matter a few weeks ago. If I remember rightly, I replied saying that we were prepared to discuss any proposal with the parish council. I have since heard nothing.

N.A.T.O. Arms (Use)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regulations which ensure that arms supplied to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies are restricted in their use to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation purposes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: There are no such regulations.

Mr. Judd: Can my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that arms supplied for the defence of freedom and democracy will never be used for the suppression of freedom fighters in Portuguese territories of Africa and elsewhere, and, if not, why not?

Mr. Healey: I cannot give an assurance on behalf of all Governments in the world. But what I can say is that Her Majesty's Government have for some time pursued a policy of not providing the Portuguese Government with arms which are primarily relevant to colonial war. I must remind my hon. Friend that this may not be the view of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since Her Majesty's Government rely on the security of such territories for communications round the Cape, is not this attitude a lot of humbug? Is not an extension of the responsibilities of N.A.T.O. to overseas territories vital to the security of Europe?

Mr. Healey: No. The hon. Gentleman must accept that many considerations of foreign policy as well as security have to be borne in mind when decisions on this type of matter are taken. I believe that it is important for the interests of the United Kingdom that we should be seen to be in support of the natural desire of the African peoples for independence.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer a question that I put to him on Monday which he did not

then answer? Will he confirm that the Government are now reconsidering their ban on the export of arms to South Africa for external defence?

Mr. Healey: I am delighted to be able to answer that question with an unequivocal no.

Mr. Dunn: On a point of order. On two separate occasions I have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to a question which he put to my right hon. Friend on Monday. Are we dealing with Monday Club questions or today's Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a most interesting point of order.

United States Arms and Equipment

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of American equipment for the Armed Forces of the Crown delivered during the 12 months ended 30th November, 1968, compared with 12 months ended 30th November, 1964; and what is the value of planned acceptances of United States equipment for 12 months ending 30th November, 1969.

Mr. John Morris: I regret that information in the form requested is not available. The amount paid from Defence Votes for American equipment in 1964–65 has been estimated at £21 million. The figure for 1968–69 is now estimated at £90 million.

Sir G. Nabarro: At a time when everyone in this country is being squeezed for imports by the import deposit scheme, is it proper that the Government should be spending vastly increased sums on American equipment, the great bulk of which could be produced in this country with a little intelligence and foresight?

Mr. Morris: If we had gone on with the plans of the Conservative Administration, which the hon. Gentleman supported and which we inherited, we would have had a much larger Polaris and Phantom force and the deliveries would have been at their peak this year. Therefore, the total dollar bill for 1968–69 would have been much heavier. In addition, we would have been paying vastly greater sums on aircraft and equipment at home as well.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the hon. Gentleman say why imports of military aircraft which are paid for in dollars are not included in the balance of payments figures for this country?

Mr. Morris: That is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is clear how it is dealt with.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of his plan to purchase $1,000 million of arms from the United States of America over the next 10 years.

Mr. John Morris: There is no plan such as my hon. Friend seems to have in mind. As he well knows, it is not the practice to give detailed forecasts of expenditure beyond the current financial year.

Mr. Dalyell: Immediately, then, can, the exact nature of offset agreements be made public?

Mr. Morris: If my hon. Friend will put down a particular question on offset agreements I will try to answer it. But, as he knows, the present offset agreement has worked remarkably well, despite cancellation of the F.111, and we are at the same time making strenuous efforts to increase sales of equipment to the United States.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the figure of £90 million for purchases of American equipment during 1969 after taking into account offset supplies to the United States of America, or before?

Mr. Morris: The question which I have answered refers directly to the matters about which the hon. Gentleman asked, what were these sales—

Sir G. Nabarro: Answer the question.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Morris: The arrogance of the hon. Gentleman is very unbecoming. I have sought to answer him already, and I have done so in the terms of the question he asked.

Mr. Ramsden: Surely the Minister can do a little more to help the House? My hon. Friend asked a perfectly clear question. Has not the Minister the information to give the House in answer to it?

Mr. Morris: I have made it clear to the House that the question asked by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was primarily related to the question of arms that we had bought from the United States. The answer referred directly to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman.

Air Training Corps (No. 78 (Wembley) Squadron)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he is aware that there is no room for a parade ground at the new headquarters of No. 78 (Wembley) Squadron, Air Training Corps in Harrow Road, Wembley; and what steps he is taking to rectify this;

(2) when it is proposed to remove the derelict buildings on Harrow Road next to the headquarters of No. 78 (Wembley) Squadron of the Air Training Corps,

Mr. Reynolds: Air Training Corps squadrons do not have an entitlement to the provision of parade grounds at public expense. This squadron occupies a small part of a surplus Territorial Army centre. The remainder of the centre, including the derelict buildings, is being disposed of. Demolition of these buildings will be a matter for the next owners.

Sir R. Russell: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that some small amount of drill is necessary for any Air Training Corps unit? How does he think this unit will obtain the drill?

Mr. Reynolds: A few A.T.C. units, where there is space which has had to be tarmacadamed to stop it getting derelict, have small parade grounds. But there never has been, and I cannot see any justification for making it, an entitlement for Air Training Corps units to be given parade grounds.

Overseas Territories (British Infantry Units)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what overseas territories British infantry, including Gurkhas, are still serving.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): As well as West Germany and Berlin, British infantry units (some of which are Gurkhas) are serving in Hong


Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Persian Gulf, Cyprus, Libya, Malta, Gibraltar and British Honduras.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman appears to have left Mauritius out of the list, and no doubt there are places in the Caribbean where they are serving. It does not seem to be a comprehensive list. Does not even that list prove that on the 66 occasions when British forces have been concerned since the end of the Second World War, it is the infantry which is so often essential for the preservation of peace? Therefore, is it wise to go on with the rapid run down of these forces?

Mr. Boyden: Yes. The present arrangements are perfectly satisfactory for dealing with this situation, including Mauritius.

Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend tell the House the exact strength of British forces in Hong Kong and their purpose? Is it to defend Hong Kong against American naval vessels in Victoria Harbour or against any attack by China?

Mr. Boyden: It is not customary to reveal the exact strength of forces in places like Hong Kong.

Five Power Conference (Kuala Lumpur)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the five-Power discussions and plans arising out of the Kuala Lumpur conference in June, 1968.

Mr. Healey: Confidential discussions betwen the countries represented at the Five Power Conference have been pro-ceding with a view to establishing effective co-operative arrangements for the defence of Malaysia and Singapore. As the Conference Communiqué made clear, it is hoped to carry these consultations a stage further at a Ministerial Meeting in the first half of 1969.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: We understand that the Secretary of State initiated this conference in June last year and we learn that he is going there again in June this year. In view of the rapid rundown in this part of the world, does he not feel some sense of urgency to try to take some leadership so that we can co-ordinate our defence efforts in a very important part of the world for Britain?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that any of our allies would dispute that we have been very much in the lead in this matter throughout. But the Australian Government, for various reasons, have had some difficulty in deciding precisely what their policy should be in this part of the world after 1971. Until they are clear about their own position in these matters, certain aspects of five Power co-operation will be difficult to tackle.

Boy recruits

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the result of his further consideration of the position of boy recruits desiring release from Her Majesty's Services; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Reynolds: A great deal of ground has already been covered in the studies to which reference has already been made in the House, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Miss Lestor: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, while considering this matter, that possibly a more flexible attitude to the release of boy recruits might result in more young people being prepared to offer themselves for this service?

Mr. Reynolds: One can make allegations, statements or hopes about it, but one cannot have proof of the matter. However, I believe that we are flexible in the matter at the present time.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the Minister, like his hon. Friend, consider a constructive suggestion from me? In order that these boys, in considering their future careers, may be properly informed, will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consider publishing the facts about manpower over-stretch which were published in the Defence Review, 1966, but which he refused to publish last week on this subject.

Mr. Reynolds: I am not prepared to allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to pre-empt a Question which he has down for tomorrow by a supplementary question today.

Influenza (Vaccine)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether in view of the short supplies, he will arrange for the


production of vaccine for use against Hong Kong 1968 flu at Porton and Nancekuke.

Mr. John Morris: It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to decide whether any special arrangements are necessary for the production of vaccine. I understand that he has not asked for help from the Microbiological Research Establishment because in his view the necessary production, testing and distribution processes could not be completed in time for the final product to be available for use against any outbreak which may occur this winter. M.R.E. has facilities for producing only the primary material in bulk. Nancekuke is not equipped for biological work.

Mr. Dalyell: Could not Porton have taken the initiative in this matter?

Mr. Morris: This is entirely a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If we had been asked to produce anything from Porton, we would have been, and are, willing to oblige any request from my right hon. Friend, but we have not been asked.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Will the Minister remember that Porton is fully occupied in protecting the population against germs far more serious than influenza?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the load at Porton, but if there were a specific request, and we had the capability to meet it, we would have met any request from my right hon. Friend. The answer to the question is that we have not had such a request.

Lance-Corporal E. Mills (Death)

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will offer travel facilities to the parents of the late Lance-Corporal E. Mills, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, killed in the Persian Gulf, to visit their son's grave in Sharjah, in view of the fact that Lance-Corporal Mills's widow is unable to travel.

Mr. Boyden: I wrote to the hon. Member on 20th November and explained why I cannot make this offer.

Mr. Woodnutt: I am aware of the Minister's letter, but could not the Gov-

ernment exercise a little compassion in cases such as this? Will the Minister accept that a mother's love for her son can be as great as a wife's love for her husband, and that if the wife was too emotionally upset to make this trip it would be reasonable to let the mother go instead?

Mr. Boyden: The Government have very much improved the arrangements in this sort of case. The position is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman says. I am sympathetic to the case, but the fact, as he knows, is that Mrs. Mills, Junior, may feel inclined to visit her husband's grave at a later date, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that situation if, in say six or eight months, she feels able to go, and then wishes to go with her mother-in-law or father-in-law.

Germany (British Forces)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now reduce the Rhine Army expenditure in the light of the present financial situation.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideraton he now proposes to give to the reduction of British forces in Western Germany in 1969, in view of the need for public economy; what economies in cost will be sought; and what discussions he proposes to have with the West German Government on British support costs.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now reduce the British Army of the Rhine expenditure in the light of the present financial situation.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make proposals for reducing the cost of the British Army of the Rhine, in order to assist the British economy.

Mr. Healey: Our plans for British Forces in Germany remain unchanged, though we shall continue to seek more economical and efficient means of working. Discussions with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on offsetting the foreign exchange expenditure of our forces in Germany are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mrs. Short: At a time when the Government are arguing about another penny for building workers, and when we have been told that part of the world monetary crisis is due to the strength of the West German mark, does not the Minister think it preposterous that the people of this country should be asked to meet a penny of this cost? When are we going to get a Minister who will stand up to the West Germans and insist that they pay the full cost of this, or or else we shall withdraw our troops?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will know that some building workers are still occupied in repairing damage caused in this country during the Second World War. The military contribution which we make in Germany is calculated to protect the whole of the Western world from war, and is as much concerned with the survival of ourselves in this country, as with the survival of anybody else. We are determined to maintain a suitable contribution.

Sir G. Nabarro: Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue this feeble, flabby policy of giving money to our German industrial competitors for defence forces, which they ought to be paying for themselves? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only preposterous, as his hon. Friend said, but a national disgrace?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman's alliteration is no more attractive than his arrogance. The fact is that we are making a contribution in N.A.T.O. for the protection of ourselves and of our Allies in Western Europe. I think that the overwhelming majority of people in this country, people of all classes, ranks and trades, believe that a contribution to the peace of the world is fully justified.

Mr. Allaun: On top of the £205 million a year direct costs, is not there an indirect cost for weapons and overheads of at least an equal amount? Secondly, is not the offset mainly purchases which the West Germans would have made from Britain in any case?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the offset. The fact is that the foreign exchange cost of forces in Germany has been met this year as to 90 per cent. by offset purchases by the German Government.

Mr. Atkins: Would not the Minister agree that of that 90 per cent. to which he refers a large proportion refers to credit and not to direct sales? Is it fair that we should be running into indebtedness in the interests of a country which is embarrassed with such large reserves?

Mr. Healey: With respect to my hon. Friend, I ask him to accept, and I should have thought the unanimity of the House in its reaction to the Czechoslovakian crisis would have lead him to accept, that N.A.T.O. is an indispensable guarantee of the security which all of us in this House enjoy at the present time. The contribution that we make to the solidarity and strength of N.A.T.O. through the B.A.O.R. is a direct support of the immunity which my hon. Friend enjoys at this moment.

Mr. Rippon: I support the firm response which the right hon. Gentleman has given about the need to maintain forces in Germany in the present circumstances. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else has threatened that we shall withdraw any forces from the B.A.O.R., as a form of blackmail in relation to support costs? Will the Minister at the same time say that he understands the feeling on both sides of the House, that we think one of the greatest contributions that Western Germany could make to the Alliance is to adopt a reasonable attitude about support costs?

Mr. Healey: On the question of support costs, as a result of negotiations with Her Majesty's Government the West German Government are making twice as large a contribution to offset foreign exchange costs as they made four or five years ago. I should have hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have paid tribute to them and to us for that achievement.
On the question of blackmail, I am glad to give the denial for which I was asked.

Mr. J. T. Price: Whilst all of us on this side of the House at least would welcome a reduction of military expenditure in Germany or elsewhere if it were judicious and in the interests of the country to effect such an economy, may I


ask my right hon. Friend to tell us what reduction in military expenditure has been effected by the Soviet Union in West Berlin, or in other parts of East Germany, which is still under her military domination?

Mr. Healey: The Soviet defence budget went up 6 per cent. this year, and her scientific budget went up by about 14 per cent. A great deal of the scientific budget is concerned with military research and development, and Soviet forces in Eastern Europe now number 50.000 more than they did six months ago. These are facts of which many people are aware, and which many people believe are relevant to the questions which have been asked this afternoon.

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he will state the total cost to Great Britain in foreign currency of maintaining British forces in Germany from 1958 until the end of the last financial year;

(2) whether he will state the total estimated cost to Great Britain in foreign currency of maintaining British forces in Germany during the current year.

Mr. Healey: The estimated net cost from 1958 to the end of the last financial year is about £310 millions. The latest estimate for 1968–69 is about £10 millions.

Mr. Newens: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that this enormous expenditure represents a direct subsidy to Germany's economic prosperity? Is he not aware that in the view of many people the economic threat to this country at present is much more serious than the military threat which we are supposed to be combating?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that anybody would regard a net expenditure of £10 million as an immense subsidy. [HON. MEMBERS: "£10 million?"] I am talking about the situation in the current year, and my hon. Friend referred to the economic situation in the current year. As this £10 million arises from our contribution to an alliance which is indispensible to our own defence, I think that it is well worth while.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not this expenditure an unrequited export? As the Government are so fussy about increasing exports which are paid for, will not the right hon. Gentleman do his duty and insist that the Germans, not the British, foot the bill?

An Hon. Member: Go to the Old Vic.

Mr. Healey: I would hope that the hon. Member, in spite of his histrionics, would recognise that security is something of value to this country as well as a healthy balance of exports. Since we succeeded in negotiating a much more favourable offset agreement with Germany than was ever achieved by the party of the hon. Member, I should have thought that he would be prepared to let it rest at that.

Mr. Barnett: As the £10 million is presumably the net figure, what is the gross figure. Out of the offset how much will have been spent in 1968–69?

Mr. Healey: The gross figure is £90 million, and the German offset obligation is £80 million. I cannot say without notice how much will have been spent by the end of the current financial year.

Royal Marines (Recruits)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the shortage of recruits for the Corps of Royal Marines; and to what factors he attributes it.

Dr. David Owen: It is estimated that the shortage of recruits for the Royal Marines will be in the order of 170 in the current recruiting year. The shortfall can be attributed to the same causes affecting recruiting for the other Services, which were discussed during the debate on Monday.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not those causes the Government's dangerous and dispiriting retrenchments? Despite that, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Royal Marines offer an increasingly important career to some of the best of our youth?

Dr. Owen: I would certainly agree with the last part of that question. I believe that the high standards of the Royal Marines are justly famous and


an attraction for recruitment. On the other part, of course, I do not agree. It is high time that hon. Members on both sides supported the development of a bipartisan approach to improving recruitment.

Mr. Ramsden: Will the Government recognise that the deficiency in recruiting to the Royal Marines, as well as to other Services, is primarily due to the fact that Service pay is now lagging about 10 per cent. behind comparable civilian rates? Will the Government do something about this situation soon and not leave it to some indefinite time next year, since, if they do, recruitment will continue to deteriorate?

Dr. Owen: We are constantly considering measures to increase the competitive pull of the Service. The House will know that the Government have asked the Prices and Incomes Board to complete its review on Forces pay within a year.

National Servicemen (Recall Liability)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if it his intention to introduce legislation extending the period during which former National Servicemen are liable for recall.

Mr. Reynolds: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which I shall be making shortly.

Mr. Peyton: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthright with the House? Can he not now accept, for instance, that this measure is probably inevitable and that, taking into account the ages of the people involved, it will be a very short-term expedient anyway? Does he not think that the time has come to be a little less shifty and to be fair to these people, who will find this an increasing obligation?

Mr. Reynolds: I will give the House the Government's full views on this matter as soon as we reach a decision.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend not now see his way to elaborating on that answer, with particular regard to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders?

Mr. Reynolds: The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are not exactly in this part of the Army.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. In view of that non-Reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice should be given in the normal way.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

N.A.T.O. Obligations (Manpower)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that he will have at his disposal sufficient manpower to fulfil the Government's undertakings to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Reynolds: Yes, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate last Monday.

Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon Gentleman think that there is any obligation upon him to clear this matter up and explain both to the people of this country and to our allies, bearing in mind what his right hon. Friend has just said, how we will meet the obligations which this Government have themselves accepted? The aims are not clear yet.

Mr. Reynolds: I do not believe that the hon. Member was here when I made my speech last Monday. I suggest that, if he reads it, he will see that I referred to four different categories of Armed Forces which would be available and said that there were tens of thousands of men in each category. I am not prepared to go further than that.

Mr. Ramsden: Are not the Government aware that we do not regard as anything like an adequate answer to a serious manpower situation the statement, which his hon. Friend made, that it was being left to the determination of the Prices and Incomes Board at some indeterminate date? Will Service Ministers turn their attention urgently to this problem, as otherwise we will be very seriously short of men?

Mr. Reynolds: We are well aware of the position in the Services, and I and my right hon. Friend admitted at this Box on Monday that the situation was most unsatisfactory. If people say that pay is one of the matters which will influence recruitment—I believe that it is important—we want to get it right and not just rush in with something.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as well.

TAVR III

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the future of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve III.

Mr. Reynolds: I have nothing to add to my statement on 28th November.—[Vol. 774, c. 739–48.]

Mr. Allason: What recognition, financial or otherwise, does the Minister propose to reward those who have served Her Majesty through this year in the TAVR III?

Mr. Reynolds: Awards for service in the reserve volunteer Forces are well known, of course, to the hon. Member. I have no other proposals.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does the Minister consider that the Government's provision of military reserves is now sufficient to completely set at rest General Lemnitzer's worry about complacency among N.A.T.O. nations?

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. and gallant Member was here when I spoke on Monday, when I said that we were adequately able to meet our commitments in Europe with the present reserves and present Regular Forces. That position is improving as our withdrawal from other parts of the world continues.

Mr. Rippon: Would the right hon. Gentleman realise that we, of course, regarded his speech on Monday as just as unsatisfactory as his answers today?

N.A.T.O. Forces and Reserves

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further action is

being taken, in view of the warning conveyed to the Soviet Government with regard to Soviet interventions affecting the situation in Europe and the Mediterranean in the final communiqué after the Ministerial meeting at Brussels on 15th and 16th November, by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to augment its forces and organise reserves to meet this new commitment.

Mr. Healey: The improvements to N.A.T.O.'s capability that are being made in the light of recent Soviet actions are described in paragraph 8 of the final communique.—[Vol. 773, c. 859.]

Mr. Cronin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is a partial and limited reassurance? Is he not aware that, while this sabre-rattling at Brussels may or may not have frightened the Russians, it certainly frightens those who are aware of N.A.T.O.'s reported deficiencies at present?

Mr. Healey: I am not an expert on the degree of fear which my hon. Friend feels, but all our allies are immensely heartened by the fact that every allied Government offered at the Brussels meeting some improvement in its planned military capability for this year, although, as I said on Monday, no country made an actual improvement as large as the British improvement on its contribution this year. I hope that my hon. Friend will take some comfort from the fact that, on this matter, we led in the Alliance.

Blowpipe Missile

Mr. McMaster: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation his Department has made of the Blowpipe missile as a cheap and effective light defence weapon against attacks by low-flying aircraft; and what requirement has been formulated for the purchase of such a weapon as standard Service equipment.

Mr. John Morris: We are considering whether we require a weapon system of this sort to supplement our existing and planned anti-aircraft capability. Amongst the factors we will take into account is the outcome of a special technical study of this project which is being carried out by Short Bros. & Harland and associated contractors under arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Mr. McMaster: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that this is an ideal small weapon for our Army in that it is simple, cheap and easy to maintain and operate? When will the Government back the efforts of the company to sell it overseas by placing a British order for it?

Mr. Morris: I have had a special study made of the operational value of this weapon, in conjunction with the other weapons which will also be available. I am also aware of the export potential of this important weapon.

Naval Shipbuilding Programme

Mr. McMaster: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the increase over the past year of Russian naval strength in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, he is satisfied as to the adequacy of the present United Kingdom naval shipbuilding programme to meet Great Britain's immediate future maritime defence requirements and contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's revised naval dispositions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Morris: As has already been announced, work is going ahead on the new classes of surface ships—the frigates, destroyers and cruisers—which the Royal Navy will require in the 1970s, and the order for the first destroyer has just been placed. Our eighth nuclear-powered Fleet submarine will be ordered early next year. The rate at which these ships will be built will depend on the review, on which we are now engaged, of the forces which we should contribute to N.A.T.O. after the withdrawal from east of Suez and the consequent run-down are complete. This review will take full account of the developments to which the Question refers.

Mr. McMaster: While again thanking the Minister for that careful reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that as the principal maritime nation in N.A.T.O. we have a particular burden in this respect? Will he not take all steps, in view of the statement already made at Question Time about the increase in the Soviet Navy, to expedite this matter, because time is not on our side?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member. As he is aware, the Royal

Navy is already contributing more ships to N.A.T.O. than any other European Power. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the operational factors earlier. I would remind the House that the total value of ships now on order, under construction or being tendered for runs to hundreds of millions of £s.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why in all this discussion about the Mediterranean does the Minister turn a blind eye, like Horatio Nelson, to the fact that the biggest Power in the Mediterranean is the United States of America, which has two aircraft carriers there, able to carry nuclear weapons to the U.S.S.R., and 50 other warships. Instead of playing about with the arms race in the Mediterranean, will the Minister not return to Hugh Gaitskell's policy of a nuclear-free zone in the Mediterranean instead of an arms race?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept it from me that I am not playing about with an arms race. All that my right hon. Friend is seeking to ensure is that we have the ships available to defend the interests of this country and that they are in the right operational command.

British Defence Equipment Catalogue

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps were taken to vet for security purposes the editors of the new British Defence Equipment Catalogue.

Mr. Reynolds: None was necessary.

Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that the publishers of this magazine were having classified and non-classified material sent to them direct from the manufacturers of certain products? Is that not a particularly dangerous procedure?

Mr. Reynolds: The magazine will not contain any classified information. If the hon. Member has any specific item in mind where something has gone wrong, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Murray: In view of the fact that there have been espionage and security cases since the end of the war, and


security deficiencies, would not the Minister consider scrapping the whole of the vetting procedure, or at least reviewing it?

Mr. Reynolds: It is constantly reviewed, but I certainly would not wish to scrap it.

Service Men (Absence Without Leave)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Service men have been court-martialled for absence without leave in each of the past four years.

Mr. Reynolds: Since the Answer involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Onslow: Could the Minister say whether there has been any increase in the numbers of courts-martial for this offence? What instructions have been issued to commands about the prosecution of alleged offenders?

Mr. Reynolds: There has been a slight increase in one Service and a slight decrease in others. The hon. Member had better see the table of figures. The procedures to be followed are laid down in the Army, Navy and Air Force Discipline Acts.

Following is the information:


THE NUMBERS OF SERVICEMEN COURT-MARTIALLED FOR ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE IN EACH OF THE LAST FOUR YEARS ARE AS FOLLOWS:





RN.
Army*
R.A.F.
Total


1965
…
…
2
786
30
816


1966
…
…
—
795
30
825


1967
…
…
1
832
21
854


1968†
…
…
—
745
15
760


Notes:


* The figures for the Army represent convictions: those for the R.N. and R.A.F. the numbers tried. It is not possible readily to provide figures for the Army on a comparable basis.


† January to September, 1968.

Army Recruitment (Enlistment Terms)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to reducing the term of initial enlistment in the Army.

Mr. Boyden: I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration in his speech in the

defence debate last Monday. It was an excellent speech which obviously got under the skin of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon).

Mr. Onslow: Leaving aside that partisan rubbish, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that many commanding officers would regard this as a favourable stimulus to recruitment and that they would hope to persuade men to re-engage if they once got them into the unit?

Mr. Boyden: The views of commanding officers differ on this matter, which has been under review on several occasions since 1961 and which is being reviewed now.

Dr. Hugh Gray: Will my hon. Friend consider introducing contracts for the Armed Services with options out at regular intervals?

Mr. Boyden: Constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Mr. Rippon: While assuring the Minister that his right hon. Friend's speech got neither under nor over my skin—I do not think that it made very much impression on anybody—may I ask him to note that on this point he made no comment whatever? While this may or may not be a good idea, may we at least have the Government's view about it?

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend did indeed make a comment. He said that the matter was being reviewed.

Oral Answers to Questions — British Territorial Waters (Russian Naval Activities)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of the increase in the last five years in Russian naval activity in waters close to the British Isles, what measures are proposed to meet the situation.

Mr. Healey: These activities are kept under surveillance by the R.N. and the R.A.F.

Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient home forces available to deal with what I understand is an increase in naval activity by the Russian Navy in waters close to the British Isles?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. We do, of course, adjust our deployment to meet any need which may arise in this regard.

Mr. Brooks: Will my right hon. Friend say how far these off-shore naval dispositions invalidate the early warning system of which Fylingdales was designed to be a part?

Mr. Healey: None of them does at the moment.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Do the adjustments in the deployment of our forces to which the Secretary of State referred also apply to overseas bases outside the Atlantic waters when the need arises there?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that the Royal Navy can make itself responsible for this type of surveillance in all other parts of the world, but we are particularly sensitive to Soviet Navy activities in waters adjacent to the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — Arab Countries (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the supply of arms to Arab countries since June, 1967, has had upon British defence policy in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Healey: The factors governing British defence policy in the Mediterranean were set out in the Statements on Defence Policy published in February and July this year. The supply of arms to Arab countries since June, 1967, affects but does not determine that policy. This is:
to make to the alliances of which we are members a contribution related to our economic capability while recognising that our security lies fundamentally in Europe and must be based on the North Atlantic Alliance.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the massive re-supply of the Arab armed forces by the Soviet Union has once again created a very dangerous situation in the Middle East and that it requires that the N.A.T.O. Allies should look very closely at the new situation?

Mr. Healey: We watch very closely any arms deliveries which may be made in that part of the world, but I am not satisfied that the military balance has been seriously upset so far.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Secretary of State follow up the initiative of Herr Strauss, as reported in The Times today, suggesting that it is necessary for Europe to protect the flanks of N.A.T.O., particularly in the Middle East?

Mr. Healey: I am glad to say that we have gained great credit in Germany for the increase in our contribution in N.A.T.O.'s strength in the Mediterranean during the last year. I only wish that we had the same credit from the Opposition in the House.

CRIMINAL CASES (NOTICE OF APPEAL)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a question which is of some difficulty. It is one which, unfortunately, I could not give you notice of, and, therefore, I do not ask for a reply immediately. It is a matter which is causing some difficulty to the House and concerns the raising of any matter pertaining to a criminal case which is pending appeal.
There is a rule of the House, which was decided as recently as Session 1962–63, that where a notice of appeal has been entered no matter can be raised in the House. Since that time, even though it was so recent. there have been observations in the Court of Appeal which have allowed the Press to comment quite freely upon matters which are pending appeal because it is considered by the Court that there is no danger of contempt in such comment because no Appeal Court judge is likely to be thereby influenced.
Would it not be right that this matter, although so recently decided in the House, should be reconsidered in the light of these rulings of the Court of Appeal so that this House should have as much right to comment as the Press? Surely it is right that we as Members of Parliament primarily responsible ultimately for law and order should also have the right to comment as much as any newspaper.
I raised this with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure last year, but so far no time has been available, to the Committee at any rate, to consider the matter. It seems as time


passes that we are in danger of losing our right to comment to the Press.

Mr. Speaker: I did not know of the point which the hon. Member intended to raise
The position is very simple. We are bound by Resolution of the House that, once a matter is before the courts, either by trial or by appeal, the House forgoes the right to comment on the matter which is sub judice. It does that, I believe, in the interests of justice itself, and especially in the interests of the person affected, him or herself. It is, however, in order for hon. Members to raise any matter in between the first trial and the notice of appeal.
I take it that the purpose of the House of Commons Resolution is that the House would not wish to try cases which are still before the courts. That freedom of comment might very well endanger the cause which the hon. Member has very deeply in mind as a learned gentleman, the course of justice itself.
This, then, is the position at the moment, that if a matter is sub judice it cannot be commented on in this House of Commons. I do not think that this is a denial of freedom.

BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (NEW PAY RATES)

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on building pay.
The National Joint Council for the Building Industry and the Civil Engineering Construction Conciliation Board reached agreements yesterday establishing new pay rates Id. less than those fixed in the agreements of 24th October and 22nd October.
When these agreements were reported to me I said that the Government would revoke the direction applying to the October agreements and withdraw the reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. This will be done by notice published in tomorrow's issue of the London Gazette.
The unions have said that they would like to meet me at an early date and I

shall welcome the opportunity to discuss with them and also with the employers the measures needed to improve productivity and provide a sound basis for further progress in the industries.
I am glad that yesterday's decisions have paved the way for such talks and it is in that spirit that I welcome the decisions which I am happy to report to the House.

Mr. R. Carr: The principle that agreements once made should be honoured is of overriding importance. We therefore welcome the fact that the unions have kept the promise which they made to the right hon. Lady on 15th November, or whatever the date was, but is she aware that in our opinion, and, I think, the opinion of many others, the dilatory and deplorable way in which the Government have handled this affair over the last 12 months—not just over the last few weeks—has been a slap in the face for responsible trade union leadership and has been a serious setback to the development of responsible collective bargaining, and that we shall probably want to return to this issue in due course?
Will the right hon. Lady give the House two specific pieces of information? First, what steps will she be taking to discover whether, as a result of her intervention, the actual future earnings in the industry will really be at the rate of Id. an hour less than they would otherwise have been? Secondly, has the arrangement just come to in any way affected the agreement of the unions to give up the automatic cost of living sliding scale agreement?

Mrs. Castle: Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have two stock words: one is "dilatory" and the other is "highhanded". They alternate their use, whatever the result of an activity, to end with a condemnation of the Government. I have no apologies to make for the time we have spent all through this business in consulting and seeking to get the best possible results from the Prices and Incomes Board study of these industries.
I do not, of course, pretend to exercise surveillance over all building sites in the country, but if the right hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that the actions of the National Joint Council and the Conciliation Board are of no significance I say to him emphatically that that is not


my view nor the view of responsible leaders on both sides of both industries.
The surrender of the cost-of-living bonus was, of course, part of the previous three-year agreement and is in no way affected.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that at no time did the building trade union leaders decide to go back on their word in relation to the Id. and that they put forward a constitutional amendment to the National Joint Council prior to the Order being imposed on them which did precisely that?
Based upon that fact, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Order was totally unnecessary and that the matter could have been settled by discussion, in view of the sensible attitude adopted by the building trade unions?
Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge that she will fully support the building trade unions in their desire that incentive bonus schemes should operate throughout the entire building industry and not merely to the 30 per cent., as they have done up to now?

Mrs. Castle: I think that my hon. Friend is well aware that the resolution that the unions passed about the acceptance of their undertaking was a conditional one. This is why it was necessary for me to give notice of the direction. I said all along that, if and when the unions fully implemented their undertaking, I should be only too happy to withdraw the direction. This is what I am now doing.
I want to pay tribute to the unions for honouring their agreement with me and say that I think that this enables us now to go forward with the constructive discussions which I know my hon. Friend and I are certainly anxious should take place. This is why I have readily expressed my agreement to meeting the unions as soon as possible, so that we can explore these possibilities in talks.

Mr. John Page: To make the position absolutely clear to both sides of the industry, will the right hon. Lady confirm that there is no time limit on this new 2d. and 2½d. agreement and that it is not

supposed to last specifically for 12 months?

Mrs. Castle: The 2½d., as the interim settlement now approved, is for the period of 12 months; but I want to make it clear that, if the industries make more rapid progress than the National Board expected they would in the discussion of productivity agreements, the Government will be ready to consider the results of those discussions on their merits. We shall consider the facts and circumstances as they exist, without making any prejudgment about the nature and timing of any future settlements.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In this and similar cases affecting lower-paid industrial workers, why is it that my right hon. Friend can and does take immediate action, whereas in the case of higher-paid executives and company directors who have increases of 10 to 20 per cent. on salaries of £5,000 to £50,000 a year in succeeding years she refuses to take any action? Details of such cases have been supplied to her on numerous occasions. Cannot she treat them all alike?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend has raised this point before, and I have answered it. As I have pointed out to my hon. Friend on more than one occasion, we have referred top salaries to the Prices and Incomes Board and are expecting its report shortly.

Dr. Winstanley: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. Does she agree that, if the Government were able to freeze prices effectively there would be little need to interfere with agreements freely reached between employers and employees? In these welcome consultations which are to take place will she concentrate not so much on how much people are paid as on the more vital matter of how much they earn?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the position. As I have explained to the House before, during past months we have been more successful in holding prices down to the target that was fixed than in holding earnings down. Even if prices were frozen, there is no guarantee that it would not be necessary to intervene to secure that wage settlements were linked to productivity and were not purely inflationary.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I and other hon. Gentlemen admire her resolution in supporting the prices and incomes policy and will continue to support her whilst she continues to show such resolution? Is she also aware that this support would be much wider on this side of the House if she could show positively that salaries, dividends and profits are receiving the same treatment as wages?

Mrs. Castle: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that expression of support. It is my desire to ensure that the prices and incomes policy is applied with equity. The Treasury has answered in detail on the operation of the dividends side of the policy. This afternoon I have reiterated that, taking into account the inevitable consequences on prices of devaluation and the Budget, we have operated the prices side of the policy extremely successfully.

Mr. Biffen: Has not this whole conflict between the Secretary of State and the employers and the unions in the industry a very unwholesome air of unreality about it, to the extent that earnings in the industry are very largely determined outside nationally negotiated rates? This afternoon the right hon. Lady said that she could not possibly supervise all local sites, whereas on Friday afternoon she said that any
genuinely costed productivity agreement … will have to be properly costed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 837.]
How can the right hon. Lady reconcile her claim to omniscience on Friday with her suddenly shatering air of realism this afternoon?

Mrs. Castle: If this has been an unreal battle, why has it created so much fury on both sides of the House? I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is getting so excited about something which he thinks is unreal. It is not unreal. The decisions that have been taken have profound significance and we are now going forward in talks with both sides of the industry to the working out of the sort of productivity deal to which the Prices and Incomes Board referred.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the important statement she has made this afternoon will be

received with great relief and satisfaction in most parts of the House and that it is the best Christmas present the building trade workers and their advisers could have given the House and the nation? Is she also aware that it is a tribute to the tenacity which she and her advisers have shown, to the ultimate good sense of the trade union leadership, and, I hope, to the ultimate good sense of everybody who is affected by the matter?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the whole House will share my pleasure that we have reached such a constructive outcome. I lay emphasis on "constructive". It was not a question of anyone trying to triumph over anybody else. It has been a question of getting this issue out of the way so that we can now go forward with the discussion of the genuine productivity deals for which there is such a long overdue need in the industry.

Mr. Ridley: What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to ensure that the Id. is not paid on individual sites in the guise of longer working hours or incentive bonus or higher piece-rate schemes over which she will have no control whatsoever?

Mrs. Castle: We know that the unions themselves have raised the issue of incentive bonus schemes. They raised it in their recent resolution, and they attach importance to it, as does the Prices and Incomes Board. Paragraph 191 of the Board's Report No. 92, on Pay and Conditions in the Building Industry, points Out the ways in which incentive bonus schemes in the industry could be made more realistic and be more genuinely related to productivity. This is the work On which we must now go forward; indeed, the unions and employers themselves are already going forward.
I am glad to tell the House that the building employers and the unions will be having a joint conference in January to discuss productivity and work study. No doubt incentive bonus scheme improvements will form part of their discussion.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the euphoria which has been expressed in the House about this agreement might not be so readily encountered on the building sites this


morning, where workers are having to take a 1d. an hour reduction after having freely negotiated a collective agreement, agreed by both the employers and the trade unions? Is it not time that this House got out of these negotiations and allowed the collective agreements to go ahead?

Mrs. Castle: First, they will not be getting a 1d. less this morning. The reduction of the Id. will operate from 30th December. I wish to correct my hon. Friend on that point of fact.
I do not agree for a moment that it is in the interest of workers in the building industry that the present chaotic wage systems should continue. Anyone who reads the Reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes will realise that there are reforms here long overdue. I remain profoundly convinced that it is the operation of the prices and incomes policy which enables us to concentrate attention on these reforms, to the benefit of the workers, the industry and the nation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

SCOTLAND (CRIMINAL LEGAL AID SCHEME)

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending breakdown of the criminal legal aid scheme in Scotland.
Over 90 per cent. of criminal legal aid lawyers in Glasgow are to resign from the scheme on 2nd January, 1969, and the Glasgow Sheriff Court, which is the busiest in Britain and the second busiest in Europe, will be in chaos before Parliament resumes. Busy surrounding courts such as those in Hamilton, Airdrie and Paisley, and even further afield will be affected, though less directly and immediately, because over

100 Glasgow solicitors provide some of the services in those courts.
An Act of Adjournal is to come into force on 2nd January which, in the view of most of the legal profession in Scotland, will destroy the independence of the Scottish Bar by making the defence lawyer depend on the patrimony of the bench and by permitting breaches of confidentiality between lawyer and client. The Law Society of Scotland, the official body, has expressed itself as against the proposed alteration in the law under the Act of Adjournal. The lawyers of Glasgow feel that they cannot in conscience act within such an alteration, and other lawyers throughout Scotland have stated that they reserve their position.
Similar legislation has been laid before the House, yet this Act of Adjournal, affecting a vital social service and fiscal matter, is not to be so laid.
Only the strongest view in conscience could move the lawyers concerned to take this step on which they have determined, breaking the honourable and continuous tradition, dating from 1424, of defending all persons in custody in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending breakdown of the criminal legal aid scheme in Scotland.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reason for his decision.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me advance notice of the matter which she wished to raise, and I have listened carefully to all she said. I have given careful consideration to the representation which the hon. Lady has made, but I have to rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit her application to the House.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1968.
2. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1968.
3. Sea Fisheries Act, 1968.
4. Advocates' Widows' and Orphans' Fund Order Confirmation Act, 1968.

And to the following Measure, passed under the provision of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:
Prayer Book (Further Provisions) Measure, 1968.

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL THEATRE

Bill to raise the limit imposed by section 1 of the National Theatre Act, 1949, on the contributions which may be made under that section, presented by Miss Jennie Lee; supported by Mr. Anthony Greenwood, and Mr. Harold Lever; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the appointment and functions of a Parliamentary Commissioner for the investigation of administrative action taken by local authorities in Scotland.
By coincidence, it is reported in today's Press that the Government of Northern Ireland intend to set up a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in in Northern Ireland. It is no part of my purpose today, however, to suggest that needs in Scotland similar to those in Northern Ireland have motivated me in bringing forward my proposal to the House. The purpose of the Bill is more limited, namely, to enable Members of Parliament more effectively to influence the administration of local government in Scotland.
It is widely acknowledged that the advantages of the Ombudsman procedure, of which we have now had some experience at the central Government level, are that it is simple, free, rapid and informal. For what the House will agree is the modest cost of £139,000, in the Estimate for the current year's expenditure, we have been able, I believe, to raise the standard of administration and to offer remedies to individuals who have suffered injustice at the hands of the central Government. However, this advantage cannot, under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967, be extended to individuals who believe that they have suffered a wrong at the hand of local authorities.
I believe that it is the experience of most Members of Parliament that the majority of cases coming to them in which constituents express grievances do not concern the administration of the central Government. The Ombudsman has shown in his report that the standard of central Government administration is high. Only about 10 per cent. of the cases which he has considered and over which he has had jurisdiction have led to an adverse report being brought in.
Nevertheless, the same might not be true if the Ombudsman's jurisdiction were


extended to cover local authority matters. This is not to cast any reflection on the standards of probity and diligence of members of local authorities, who are unpaid and give their services in a part-time capacity.
None the less, there are many cases with which Members of Parliament have to deal in which a regional Ombudsman could be of great service, for example, in education. Local authorities' decisions to exclude a child from a particular school may give rise to great heartburning and concern. Planning cases resulting in compulsory purchase orders may likewise give rise to a sense of grievance. In the exclusively local authority function of housing allocation, the operation of a points system may give rise to charges of maladministration. Similarly, in the operation of the local authority welfare services, such as the provision of home helps, there is frequently a sense of grievance.
It may be asked why I have sought to apply the Bill only to Scotland. I do not intend to suggest that Scotland's needs are in any way greater than those of the rest of the country. I do not believe that the standard of local administration in Scotland is in any way below that of the United Kingdom as a whole, but there are good arguments for introducing such a Measure in Scotland. It is a compact administrative entity with its own traditions and local government set-up and it is highly suitable for an experimental innovation of this kind.
I have some support from my noble Friend, Lord Shackleton, who, during the debate on the Parliamentary Commissioner Act in another place, acknowledged that when we got round to considering how to bring local government under the scrutiny of the Ombudsman it would be appropriate to do it by means of regional commissioners.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to address the House under the Ten-Minute Rule if a series of conversations is going on all over the House.

Mr. Maclennan: As Lord Shackleton said, it is doubtful whether a single Commissioner, least of all the proposed

Parliamentary Commisioner, who would report to Parliament, could cope with all the complaints which would flow in a country of 50 million people about local authorities.
The time is ripe for an experiment in the extension of the scheme and the establishment of a new regional Parliamentary Commissioner. It may be asked why the Commissioner should be responsible to Parliament in a matter essentially concerned with local government. But the public rightly view the Member of Parliament as being in a sense the watchdog of the whole of public administration and not just over the administration of central Government. There is much common sense in that. The Member of Parliament is in many cases able to be more detached from the issues confronting the local authority whose activities are under scrutiny than it would be possible for any local government representative to be.
It may also be asked whether it is appropriate to bring forward such a measure at this time, when the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland, under Lord Wheatley, is about to make its report. But the problem of maladministration in local government will persist whatever recommendations are made. It is inconceivable that legislation would be forthcoming as a result of these recommendations within a short time. Consequently, there is much to be said for gaining experience of the operation of a regional commissioner prior to the Government's considering how they intend to implement the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission.
There is, finally, the question whether the proposal is practicable. Objection may be raised that when there is a multiplicity of local authorities such as we have in Scotland the procedure would be highly complex. This can best be answered by the experience of other countries. In New Zealand, which has recently announced its intention to extend the jurisdiction of its Ombudsman, consultations are going ahead with local authorities on how best to introduce legislation along these lines. In Finland, which has had long experience of the Ombudsman procedure, every level of public administration has been under


scrutiny since the Ombudsman was established—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is introducing his Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule.

Mr. Maclennan: I draw my remarks to a close, Sir, by citing the example of Denmark, where the Ombudsman can also consider public administration at every level, and Norway, which has passed a Bill, to become effective on 1st January, 1969 to implement precisely similar proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Maclennan, Miss Herbison, Mr. Willis, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Dewar, Mr. Eadie, Mr. William Hamilton, and Mr. Mackintosh.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)

Bill to make provision for the appointment and functions of a Parliamentary Commissioner for the investigation of administrative action taken by local authorities in Scotland, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th April and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

As amended, considered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have posted, as is my wont, my selection of Amendments on Report. I have suggested that with New Clause 1 we take Government Amendments Nos. 6 and 49.

New Clause 1

BANDS OF MUSIC, TORCHES, FLAGS AND BANNERS

Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 (which makes it illegal to incur election expenses on account of bands of music, torches, flags and banners) shall cease to have effect.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.8 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your intimation that the House may consider Amendments Nos. 6 and 49 with the Clause.
The Clause repeals Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which prohibits expenditure for election purposes on account of bands of music, torches, flags and banners. Clause 10 already makes an amendment to that Section, and so it is to be omitted by Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 49 adds Section 97 of the 1949 Act to the list of enactments in the repeal Schedule.
Clause 10 was discussed at some length in Committee, when I explained how it was intended to implement recommendations made by the Electoral Advisory Conference. The conference recommended that the prohibition in Section 97 should be relaxed to allow payments to be made for recorded music and torches, flags and banners which were to be used for purposes that were not objectionable. Clause 10 meets both these points.
I ventured to commend Clause 10 in Committee as bringing a little more light and colour to the election scene, but it


became clear in our discussions that the Committee was inclined to be more adventurous and to extend even further the scope for entertainment at election times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) questioned whether it was wrong to pay a group of musicians to enliven the election scene, asked whether the Clause allowed banners at outdoor election meetings and suggested that it was anomalous—and he had force in his argument—to allow recorded music and music provided by unpaid musicians, but to prevent live musicians from being paid for their services at processions and demonstrations. The Musicians' Union has not been slow to make representations about the same matter; nor has my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip.
During discussion in Committee, a number of references were made to the illogicalities which would flow from merely tinkering with Section 97. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) submitted that there would be far more danger to the public from amateur musicians than from paid bands and suggested that the limit on election expenditure was sufficient safeguard against musical excesses. I am inclined to agree with him. Finaly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) came up with the root and branch solution that all our difficulties could be solved by repealing Section 97 altogether.
I promised that the Government would look at these points and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, approaching the matter with the reasonableness and care which we take with all proposals emanating from right hon. and hon. Members, are now satisfied that Section 97 may safely be repealed and that it can be left to the limit placed on election expenses to regulate expenditure in this direction.
If new Clause 2 is added to the Bill, we can, therefore, look forward to a new freedom in election campaigns and to the time when a candidate if he has the money to spare may safely pay someone to blow his trumpet for him.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should declare an interest in music Mr. Sharples.

Mr. Richard Sharples: We are grateful for the new Clause. It reflects the spirit of the debate in Committee that there should be a little more light in elections generally. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has fairly pointed out, the views expressed in Committee by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) carried a great deal of weight with right hon. and hon. Members.
It is fair to say, also, that the views expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) carried weight when he pointed out that the original reason for the prohibition on bands was to prevent corruption, since one of the best methods of bribery was to pay supporters for carrying banners or blowing trumpets. As the Attorney-General has agreed, these matters are now quite rightly taken care of by the limit on election expenses. We are grateful to the Government for the new Clause and welcome it.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us whether "bands and music" can by definition be held to include one man with bagpipes?

The Attorney-General: There are various views on whether that constitutes music, but I think that it would probably constitute a band.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: This matter shows how ancient Acts tend to get incorporated in modern Acts of Parliament, but the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has decided to remove Section 97 altogether from our legislation indicates that ideas do get through to Parliamentary draftsmen, although somewhat belatedly.
The fact that the Government have taken this course augurs well for the rest of our progress and gets us off to a good start with the Report stage of the Bill.

Sir Douglas Glover: I, too, thank the Attorney-General. We did a useful job of work in convincing him in Committee. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and all of us brought a shade of light to the proceedings. This change means that the right hon. and learned Gentleman


will be able to play "Hail the conquering hero comes" at the next election. He will be one of the few right hon. or hon. Members opposite to be able to claim a victory.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATE IN NOMINATION PAPER AND ON BALLOT PAPER

(1) In rule 7 of the parliamentary elections rules (which relates to the nomination of candidates at parliamentary elections, and of which paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) are applied to local government elections in England and Wales)—

(a) in paragraph (2) (contents of nomination paper) before the words 'description of the candidate' there shall be inserted the words '(if desired)'; and
(b) in paragraph (3) for the words 'The description shall not refer to the candidate's political activities' there shall be substituted the words 'The description (if any) shall not exceed six words in length'; and
(c) paragraph (4) (which authorises a returning officer to shorten or replace a description if it is unduly long) shall be omitted.

(2) In rule 5 of the local elections rules in Schedule 3 to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, after paragraph (4), there shall be inserted as a new paragraph (4A):—
'(4A) The particulars of a candidate given in a nomination paper may, if desired, include a description in addition to the particulars required by paragraph (3) or (4) of this rule; but a description included by virtue of this paragraph shall not exceed six words in length';
and in rule 12 (2) (a) of those rules (under which the particulars on a ballot paper are to be taken from the nomination papers) after the word 'residence' there shall be inserted the words "and description (if any)'.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this Clause it would be convenient to discuss the Amendment thereto, standing in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Mary-lebone (Mr. Hogg) and other right hon. and hon. Members, in line 10, leave out

'omitted' and insert 'replaced by the following:
(4) During the hours for delivery of nomination papers, and not later than one hour after the latest time for delivery thereof, a duly nominated candidate may object to the description of another candidate on the grounds that his description is misleading and; does not accurately describe him. In the event of a failure to reach agreement the Returning Officer shall order that no descriptions of candidates shall be included on the ballot paper';
and new Clause 3—Amendment of Local Elections Rules—standing in the names of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and his colleagues.
In the Representation of the People' Act,. 1949, in Schedule 2 (Local Election Rules), at: the end of Rule 15 there shall be inserted the words:—
'Provided that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these rules, where two or more candidates declare their intention in) writing to the returning officer not less than two weeks before polling day to that effect, the names of those candidates shall be grouped together on the ballot paper; and the returning officer shall then cause a. draw to be held for the purpose of determining the order in which groups of candidates and individual candidates shall appear on the ballot paper; and on the ballot paper, any such group of names shall be identified by means of a bracket';
and Government Amendments Nos. 13, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 41, 42, 50, 53, and 54.

Mr. Callaghan: That formidable list of Clauses and Amendments, Mr. Speaker, constitutes, with two exceptions, consequential provisions on new Clause 2. They do not give the House need for further consideration if it accepts the principle of new Clause 2. The two exceptions are the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to new Clause 2 and new Clause 3, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and of his colleagues.
I promised in Committee to give careful thought to what had been said about the question of inserting on the ballot paper any political description that a candidate himself wished to insert. It is fair to say that, as a result of its debates, the Committee was ready to agree that it would be an advantage if a candidate were able to describe himself politically if he so wished; and, certainly, there is no doubt that the public are anxious that this should be done as an additional aid to voters.
The Government therefore see no reason to move from their original view that there is a strong case for giving the voter information about the cause for which a candidate stands, and nothing said in Committee has removed that conclusion. The argument therefore settled around how it was to be achieved and there were various proposals. As I acknowledge when I put my original proposal, there were two deficiences in it: first, it was complex and, secondly, it applied only to Parliamentary and not local government elections.
I have, therefore, approached this subject with an open mind, although I had a slight sense of grievance when one of our great national dailies said that I had been forced to retreat in face of a wave of opposition in Committee, whereas right hon. and hon. Members will agree that I declared at the beginning that, if we could find a way to do this, we would do it. That was the spirit of our approach.
I also paid attention to what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Maryle-bone said to me about the difficulties that the proposal would entail for the Conservative Party, which is, of course, something I should bear in mind in bringing forward a scheme of this sort.
The Clauses and Amendments I have put down, particularly new Clause 2, move a long way from the original provisions, and go a great deal of the way towards meeting the objections. The scheme is simple—one describes oneself in any way one thinks appropriate. It also includes local government elections, which is what most people wanted. The two basic objections raised by myself and others have been met. A candidate at both Parliamentary and local government elections should be able to include, in future, on the nomination paper a political or personal description of himself. He may also include, if he wishes, the word "independent" or "non-party", or he need include no description whatever.
The only requirement is that the description should not exceed six words in length. If it does contain more than six words, the returning officer would have to decide that the nomination paper was invalid until the candidate reduced it to the required length. It will not be the function of the returning officer to determine whether the descriptions included

in the ballot paper are those which a candidate can properly claim to use. The reason for this is the desire and practice of all parties to avoid involving returning officers in questions which are essentially political.
Every case put forward has some difficulties and objections. The objection to this is clear. It is the prospect that some candidates might use descriptions to mislead electors. This is something that we shall have to take into account. In considering it I have had regard to past history and future prospects. If I may put it on the most pompous plane, it would show a lack of proper respect for our Parliamentary procedures if we proceeded on the view that candidates who were advancing themselves for selection by their fellow citizens for elevation to this House or to local government were likely to so misuse the procedure as to endeavour to deceive the electors about themselves.
I would hope that most people who stand for election would have a proper sense of responsibility. I agree that one cannot wholly rely on that. I do not think that there is much in the argument that any political party will find a series of £150 deposits to put up so that they can nominate mischievous candidates on the other side. That is not the way we normally conduct our affairs, but it is a risk that we will have to take in adopting a procedure of this sort.
The greatest difficulty is likely to come when one has a candidate who is slightly off-centre from his party and wants to claim the right to call himself by that party name. I would answer that by saying that he can do that at the moment on everything but the ballot paper. He can do it in his address to the electors, in his window bills, in any election literature including his "election specials" that he cares to send round. So we are not removed from that danger at all, although obviously we are increasing it marginally by allowing such a misleading description, if it is misleading, to be included in the ballot paper.

Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that there is more than a marginal element in this, because it is the one piece of paper which a candidate can rely on getting into the hands of anyone who goes to vote.

Mr. Callaghan: That is true. This is a matter for argument that could be put in debate.
The same objection would have arisen on the Conservative Party's own proposal. That was one reason why I felt that this ought to meet its wishes. Its proposal was to post, either in the booth or the polling station a list with the names, which candidates themselves were free to choose. It would be a marginal difference, because if it was posted on a notice in the polling booth that would be brought to the attention of every elector at the moment of decision. There is not a great deal of difference between the Amendment and the new Clause, except that mine deals with the ballot paper and the Amendment mentions a notice in the polling booth or station.
I want to deal with local government elections. The effect of the Government's Clause is to apply the scheme for party labels to local government elections in Scotland. At present, there is no provision for the inclusion of any description whatever on nomination papers and ballot papers at those elections. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was quick to point this out to us, so we would be extending the right there, and I gather that he takes no exception to it.
I have considered the Amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. It assumes that candidates can object to a misleading description on another candidate's nomination paper. At Parliamentary elections he has the right to object, although the bases on which he can object are very limited, as will be seen from the relevant Schedule in the Representation of the People Act. In paragraph 5 of the local election rules in that Act it will be found that there is no provision for a candidate to object to a nomination paper. This only applies apparently in Parliamentary elections, and there is no provision or procedure for it in local government elections. A candidate does not have that right at local government elections. The present arrangements for the delivery of nomination papers would not permit objections to be put forward by candidates to the returning officers.
Under the law there is no provision for considering the question of a misleading description at the stage of nomination. One reason is that the returning officer

would not be able to deal with such an objection. Take the esoteric case of the candidate who described himself either as "gentleman" or "esquire". I understand that in the 18th century a great deal of time and erudition was spent on consideration of this weighty matter. We have now removed this from the control of the returning officer and most of us, although we may feel it is irrelevant, are grateful.
There are also some practical objections to the right hon. and learned Member's Amendment. If there was agreement between the objector and the candidate in question to amend the description complained of, and they might come to an agreement after representations, there would have to be some procedure for notifying other candidates of the change, because they might feel that they had an interest in it, too. They might object to the change of description. It might come too close to their own candidature to make it attractive to them. We would have to provide for them not to be deprived of their opportunity. It is at least possible to argue that if there is a change to be made the proposer and the other signatures on the nomination paper ought to be consulted before a change is made. That, too, would involve time, and a procedure that would need to be followed. Time is rather important at this stage.

Mr. C. Pannell: Before we embark on any machinery which we may regret, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind, on this narrow point, whether it would not be enough to consult just the mover and seconder of the nomination paper, rather than a dozen people?

Mr. Callaghan: I should have thought that that might be possible, too. I will not propose any machinery. What I am saying is that no machinery exists. If we were to adopt this proposal it would be necessary to write in some machinery. I recommend that it is not worth while devising an intricate piece of machinery for this purpose. The over-riding factor, however, is that it is undesirable that the returning officer should become involved in political controversy. The effect of the Amendment would clearly be to involve him. He would have to take some decisions. In the case of Parliamentary elections it is arguable, but with local


elections there is the view that this might involve him in taking decisions about those who would later be his employers, in one form or another.
Having looked at this Amendment as fairly as I have looked at all the other proposals, I have reached the conclusion that although an element of risk is involved, if one takes account of the factors, if we start from the premise that it is a good thing to have a description on the ballot paper, either political or personal, we should leave it to the good sense of the candidate to decide how they should call themselves. If the parties outside objected, it would be for them to ensure, as they do now, that the only true Conservative is the one nominated by the constituency association and that anyone else was an imposter, or whatever form their objection might take.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening on this Bill, but it interests us all. He has been considering the question of misleading descriptions. Would he also consider the possibility of a description which is not misleading in that sense? As he will know, six words to a good journalist can be a mini-manifesto. Surely it would be extremely undesirable if, for example, John Smith described himself as the "Send the Blacks home" candidate on the ballot paper. Is not something of that sort a possibility which could not be described as misleading, but which everyone would hope would not happen?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, that is also true. We had to consider what seemed to me a minimum number of words. Having looked through the list of some hundreds of parties which have been registered, we find that some can legitimately put up to five words without too much trouble. I can think of, for example, National Liberal and Conservative, and one would only have to put something before National. There may be all sorts of combinations. We thought that six was about the minimum, but I agree that we should see how this works. If the House did not like it and felt in the end that it was not working well, we should reconsider the matter.
However, on balance—all these are various degrees of risk—as the public cer-

tainly want this, especially for local elections, where quite a number of words can be needed to describe a candidate—for instance, one could be the candidate for the Sutton and Cheam Ratepayers' Association—I think that we are right to fix about this limit. I recommend it to the House on that basis, that I have tried to meet what seemed to me the general wish. Although objections can be raised to almost any scheme, I hope that this one is worth trying and will raise the smallest number of objections.

Mr. Sharples: The House is grateful to the Home Secretary for the way in which he has tried to meet the generally expressed view on both sides that any scheme for putting party labels on ballot papers or exhibiting them in the polling stations should be equally applicable to local elections. It was the general view that it was probably much more important in local elections, where the number of candidates is probably much larger than at a Parliamentary election. There were references to 16 or more names on a ballot paper in some cases, with three or four representing one party.
I express our gratitude for the way in which he has met our difficulties about the registration of parties. I appreciate that this has meant to a large extent that his original scheme has had to go. That is why we are faced with this large number of Amendments to take out a large part of the Bill.
The other criterion which I mentioned in Committee was that the returning officer should not have to make a political decision. This, I think, is a correct principle. Our proposal will not involve the returning officer. In Committee, I referred to the question of putting the name on the ballot paper as opposed to our scheme of simply a notice being exhibited in the polling station of the party or political organisation which a candidate purported to represent. I said that there was a considerable difference between the mere exhibition of a notice and the putting of a party or organisation name on the ballot paper, which is looked upon by most people as a statutory and authoritative document.
But somewhat different considerations apply. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has said, difficulties could arise.


We do not want to exaggerate. I agree with most of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that the people, particularly in Parliamentary elections, where there is far more putting forward of views and disagreeing with views, can be relied upon to use their good sense, but there is a possibility of someone trying deliberately to confuse the issue by putting a misleading description on the paper. For instance, someone whose name began with a letter high in the alphabet could include such a description as the "Official" Labour or Conservative candidate, which would be wholly misleading.
The effect of our Amendment is that another candidate standing would have the right to object to a description which a candidate puts in at the time of nomination or within one hour afterwards—the time is strictly limited for doing so—on the grounds that his description was misleading and did not accurately describe him. There would be no discretion on the part of the returning officer. If a certain candidate objected to the description of another, there would be no descriptions on the ballot paper at all. The returning officer would have no discretion if there were no agreement.
I can see a difficulty in this myself, that it would be open to one candidate, perhaps, to prevent others from having their descriptions on the ballot paper at all, but there is a good precedent for this procedure in the provisions relating to broadcasting, under which one candidate can object to the appearance of others in a television programme and can thereby prevent all candidates from taking part. I do not want to exaggerate the problem, but it is a real one, given the apparently statutory nature of the ballot paper.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may not be able to give a firm answer now. Our Amendment has only been on the Notice Paper for a short time, since we had to consider his new scheme carefully. However, I would ask him to consider this point further and to look at the very real difficulty between now and the time that the Bill goes to another place, and to see whether or not the point of this Amendment can be met by a Government Amendment in another place.
This scheme is a great improvement on that originally put forward by the

Home Secretary. I am grateful for the notice which he has taken of the arguments put forward on both sides of the House, and particularly from these benches.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Every speech made on this proposal reveals the fundamental weakness of the idea. I think that Mr. Speakers Conference was wiser, after all. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has abandoned the original proposals, which erected a fantastic apparatus to ensure that simple information was given to the electorate which could be given by other means. This proposal is certainly a great improvement.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) and my right hon. Friend had to deal with the problem of misdescription. If a description is to be given on a ballot paper, it must be right. But I still prefer the earlier proposal of the Opposition for the display in polling stations of one poster from each candidate describing himself. That is the best thing. The candidate is going through the election with his own description and it would be an abuse of this proposal if, at the last minute, he set out on the ballot paper deliberately to mislead the electorate about himself. We must reckon with what are usually described as crank candidates who have their own descriptions and means of approach to the electorate.
I have been in this difficulty, but never in a Parliamentary election. If electors are in doubt about where the Parliamentary candidate stands, either the candidate has not been doing his job or the elector is too lazy to find out. Is it the duty of this House to encourage indifference and laziness on the part of candidates or electors? The right to vote is a precious right of citizenship. It is so precious that we are to confer it on people who have not asked for it but whom we nevertheless think should have it. Let us encourage them to do their duty in exercising the right given to them.
I have been in difficulties at local government elections. I looked in vain during one election for the Greater London Council for guidance concerning the considerable array of candidates. I thought how useful it would have been to have had in the polling station a


reminder of the candidates who stood under the various political labels. I should have thought that that was enough. It is the candidate's duty to impress himself on the electorate. It is not the function of the machinery of elections to assist in that process.
However, none of us can take objection to the revised version. It is a relief to see the whole of Schedule I go. It offered frightening possibilities—more civil servants and registrars, and more books, registers, papers and all the rest with which I should have thought we could dispense. We have done so. I confess that I was astonished that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with his intelligence and judgment in public affairs, should ever have fostered a proposition of this kind. Now we have this modified proposal, which I cannot bless, although I will tolerate it if that is the general view of the House.
4.45 p.m.
If I catch Mr. Speaker's eye later, I may have a few words to say about the way in which Mr. Speaker's Conference is being treated by the House and the Government. This is not the moment to do that, but I wish to remind the House that that conference mulled over this problem, saw the difficulties and examined the possibilities of abuse and misdescription. We went through the mental processes which the Government have gone through and which the House is asked to go through now.
It will be very bad for Mr. Speaker's Conference and for the reputation of the House if work which is done freely, voluntarily and assiduously for long hours by Members of the House to assist the House to come to agreed conclusions is then wasted. After all, that is what Mr. Speaker's Conference is enjoined to do. We reach agreed conclusions, we make our recommendations to the House and then we find that they are flouted. Later, I shall point out the extent to which our recommendations have been flouted. That is bad both for Mr. Speaker's Conference and for the House.
Although it is perhaps an empty threat for me to say that I shall never serve again on Mr. Speaker's Conference, I hope that those who come after me, and

after Mr. Speaker himself, will bear my words in mind when they are asked to undertake a job of this kind, only to have it pushed under the carpet and have greater wisdom, and greater pretensions of wisdom, brought before the House for its approval.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: With the greatest respect, the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is a little unkind to the Government and to the House about the way in which Mr. Speaker's Conference has been treated.
There is nothing sacrosanct about the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. In 1917, when the first Mr. Speaker's Conference reported, the first thing which Mr. Lloyd George, then Prime Minister, did was to overthrow a unanimous recommendation and to place it at the disposal of the House, which came to the opposite conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman is not in tune with history if he thinks that the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference are bound to be accepted by the House without argument or debate. That would be a most undemocratic process.
Although some very eminent Members served on Mr. Speaker's Conference, their collective wisdom is not as great as that of 630 hon. Members.

Mr. C. Pannell: The quintessence—the hon. Gentleman was a member.

Mr. Lubbock: They were not the quintessence. I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I could have chosen a much better conference if I had been given the job.

Sir D. Glover: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should cast aspersions on any hon. Member, but I wonder whether he would have deprived himself of membership?

Mr. Lubbock: Having served and suffered on it for three years, I probably would have nominated somebody else if I knew that it would go on for as long as it did without coming to any conclusions.
The other point which the right hon. Member for Sowerby might bear in mind is that Mr. Speaker's Conference worked in secret throughout the three years. None of its deliberations was enlivened by any advice from outside sources,


apart from the evidence which was solicited and that which was proffered by outside organisations. I do not think that we made all that much effort to involve the public in our deliberations. Therefore, in many cases, we may have come to the wrong conclusions, and I happen to think that we did. I am very relieved that on many of the decisions which, in my view, Mr. Speaker's Conference took wrongly the Government have had second thoughts.

Mr. C. Pannell: And third thoughts.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes—and why not?

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentlman is misleading the House if he is suggesting that Mr. Speaker's Conference did not have outside evidence. In reporting to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker said that the conference had studied with care masses of evidence and documentation from many sources. Surely we all remember the documents we received from the various political parties, only to mention a few and perhaps the most important representations which we received.

Mr. Lubbock: I have received from Mr. David Butler, of Nuffield College, advice which was not available to Mr. Speaker's Conference on this important matter of party labels at local elections, and I shall refer in a moment to what he said in this connection. I am just pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman that though there was, as he said, a mass of documentation throughout the three years, much of the advice which is now available to the House in making a final decision, as we now have to on Report, was not conveyed to Mr. Speaker's Conference, and that, therefore, perhaps, in many cases we arrived at wrong decisions. I am only saying that I think that that happened in this instance of party labels. Indeed, we might have solicited advice from eminent psephologists such as Mr. David Butler and that would have enabled us to have come to sensible conclusions and to have saved the time of the House.
As to what the right hon. Gentleman said about preferring a notice in a polling station, which was the suggestion put by the Opposition in Committee, I would ask whether he does not think this would be more likely to mislead the electorate

than if we were to have labels on the ballot papers themselves. If a notice appears in a polling station the person whose description is mistaken is not in a position to correct it till the very last moment. Though he might call attention to it by making a speech, or issuing a Press notice, which might be published in the local paper, and though, if he were fortunate, it might receive some attention on the radio or television, this would be at only the very last stage of the campaign, when it would be almost impossible for him to draw attention to the fraud being perpetrated on the electorate, and there would not be time for the correction to sink in.
If a mistaken description appears on the ballot paper, obviously it must have been on the nomination paper which is submitted well in advance of polling day, and then he is in a position to take every step open to him to correct the misleading impression which may have been put upon the minds of the electors.
Therefore, if we are to discuss the merits of having party descriptions on notices in the polling stations, as compared with party descriptions on ballot papers, I would infinitely much prefer the latter, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, may agree with that proposition.
Of course, once we have done away with the registration procedures, as provided in the Home Secretary's first draft, we shall run into this problem, which is inevitable. If two or more people use the same description there is no kind of machinery suggested by the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone for making certain which is correct; if there is no agreement, there will be no party label at all.
I tried to get over that in my new Clause 3 by suggesting, as did Mr. David Butler, in an article in the Sunday Times this week, that one can forget about party labels for ballot papers altogether; one can merely provide that where a group of candidates choose to put themselves forward as a team their names will be placed consecutively on the ballot paper and they will be bracketed together so as clearly to identify them as members of a group; and, further, that the returning officer shall hold a draw to determine the order in which those


groups of people and any remaining individual candidates shall appear on the final version of the ballot paper.
There is an additional refinement worthy of the Home Secretary's attention, and that is the departure from the alphabetical order which we have at the moment and which is said by many experts to confer an advantage on those who appear at the top of the list. I believe there is evidence of this—and I can see the reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby might be reluctant to accept any suggestion of this nature. It does not make much difference to me, personally, because I am roughly in the middle alphabetically, but I think that, looking at the matter objectively, we would agree that persons whose names begin with the letters A or C have some advantage over those whose names begin with S or V. This is a distortion of the democratic process which it it the job of this House to try to correct.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devenport (Dame Joan Vickers) may have something to say on this question. I do not know whether she has had any experience of it herself, being so far down the alphabetical list, but if she has, she has overcome it. She has overcome any such disadvantage by her great virtues and she has come to this House. Nevertheless, that was a handicap which she had to overcome during her election, and although it has not made any difference to her success, and I am delighted about that, it could in a marginal election, and I think the Home Secretary might take the opportunity of giving this matter his attention, if not now, perhaps when the Bill goes to another place.
I am not firmly wedded to the idea of the grouping of names such as is suggested in my new Clause, for the simple reason that one has had very little time to think about it. The successive stages of this Bill have followed one another so closely that it has been extremely difficult to take advice from experts outside and to draft properly considered Amendments in time for Report now. So I am not going to pretend that new Clause 3 properly carries out the intentions which I have described to the House. However, I think that the Home Secretary has

probably met the main point, which was discussed in Committee.
I certainly agree that what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) now proposes is a great improvement on the Bill as it first stood, but I would ask the House, before we part with this Bill and have lost for another 20 years the chance we now have, to consider the matter of the order of names on the ballot paper.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I seek to make only two observations on the consequences of doing away with registration. Since there will now be no registration—the observation has already been made and I must agree with this—any candidate can now steal the title of another candidate and thus succeed in misleading the electorate. It may well be that there is here a safeguard at Parliamentary elections at which, of course, one has to have a large deposit, and at which a candidate needs substantial organisation to back him, but the same is not so in local elections.
I am concerned about this because of the frequent petty squabbles which occur at local level when there are splits in the major political parties, and there is often controversy over who is the official candidate of the party, and even one who may perhaps be expelled from his party may claim to be its true representative. One can envisage this happening in one sphere at the next General Election because of the defection of one hon. Member from his party in this House, and where there has already been litigation.
I think that my right hon. Friend must certainly agree with the main intention of these changes, but he underestimates their importance, and how important this may become in the future. I hope that he will have a look at this, because I fear that there may be quite a rash of happenings, where a candidate purports to use the title of another.
There is another matter which has not been raised, and that is that no candidate can now have a label at all, and it seems to me wrong that on the one hand we say a label may be used and then say that a person has a right not to use the label. I say this because it seems to me that a candidate can now


avoid the consequences of his affiliation to a party by not putting on the ballot form the name of the party to which he belongs and to which he is affiliated.
If we are to have titles, then every candidate should have a title. It would be wrong to have a half-way measure whereby some candidates will have a title, some will display their affiliation and others will not. At the very least, candidates who have no affiliation ought to be able to use the word "independent".
5.0 p.m.
The Amendment to new Clause 2 has a weakness in that it does not allow for the sorting out of the problem. If there is failure to reach agreement, no one is allowed to use discretion and we are back to square one. We need machinery whereby, in advance of an election, the legitimate right to a party label can be decided and provided for. When a commercial title is used by a firm not entitled to do so, there is a law of passing off—

Mr. Sharples: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is nothing in the law, or in the law as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, which prevents anyone using any description up to the time when the elector goes into the polling station. All the Amendment to new Clause 2 does is to take care of a disagreement about the description on the ballot paper. It does not prevent anybody using any description.

Mr. Rose: Yes, but the point was made earlier by the hon. Gentleman that this is an official document which contains the description and has a special status. I accept that this is so. The weakness of the Amendment is that, where there is failure to reach agreement, all the descriptions are erased and we are left in the position in which we would have been had the Bill never come before the House. This is a weakness, although I sympathise with the intention of the Amendment.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look again at this and consider whether machinery can be created to solve this problem. We have had little time to consider this. I received to-day a letter from my agent, a particularly good agent who has achieved remarkable results in two successive General Elections. He

felt that he had not had time to consider the full consequences of many points in the Bill. There may well in the future be controversy over the use of party labels and an unfair use of them, and I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at this point, which is a direct consequence of doing away with machinery for the registration of party labels.

Sir D. Glover: I support much of what the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said. Having served on Mr. Speaker's Conference for three years, I am astonished at the ease with which the Government have thrown out most of our proposals—

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me; my right hon. Friend made the same mistake. In fact, we have adopted 60 of the 71 proposals, plus others in part. No one can claim that the views of Mr. Speaker's Conference have been flouted, ignored or set on one side.

Sir D. Glover: I was not intending to pick a quarrel, but it is extraordinary that the Government have not accepted the most important recommendations while they have accepted the minor ones. On a pure numerical basis they have accepted most of them. On this recommendation we went into the problems in conference and individually with our agents, working out the difficulties involved. It is significant that the Government's first try was accepted by the whole House as being completely unworkable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was not unworkable, but it was so complicated that no one would accept it. The longer we debate this the more the views and fears expressed in Mr. Speaker's Conference come to light.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) says that he has a good agent. I suppose there are two points of view on that and on the results of the last two elections. He accepts the fears about registration. The Opposition have got nearest to solving the problem in the Amendment to New Clause 2, but I am not certain that the problem is completely solved even by the Amendment.
Everyone is trying to keep the returning officer out of this. Once registration is brought in people will have the right to register as standing for a certain party


or group. It is like looking for the philosopher's stone, the deeper one delves, the more snags one finds. If my right hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted, the result will be that, for example, in Pembrokeshire the candidate who is recognised by the official party machine will be asked to object to any other similar description, so that the candidates will appear on the ballot paper with no description. This will inevitably happen in a contested election where two candidates feel that they justifiably represent the same party. In those circumstances, the result of the Amendment would be that no candidate would be described on the ballot paper.
I started off with the idea that descriptions were undesirable. I accept what the right hon. Member for Sowerby said, that to vote is an honour, a privilege and a duty, and therefore a person who intends to cast a vote should at least have taken the trouble to ascertain beforehand who he will vote for.

Mr. Denis Coe: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1964 he was imploring the Government of the day to look at this question and, on 16th April, he said that when the electors go to the polling station they are confused to find that the ballot paper contains only a list of names. I gather that he has changed his mind.

Sir D. Glover: I have given the matter some study since then. I have discovered that what I said in an easy way at that time has many snags to it. We are all searching for the philosopher's stone and even the Home Secretary is not absolutely certain that he has it right.
We also do not wish the returning officer to be the person who makes the decision or gets involved. A possibility which might be linked on to the Amendment is that where there is a dispute the returning officer might act as Mr. Speaker acts on Standing Order No. 9 where he refuses to accept a Motion but gives no reasons for doing so. The returning officer could refuse to accept a description and ask for another description, acceptable to him, to be provided before the close of nominations. He would not express a view, he would not suggest what should be written on the

ballot paper. I was impressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) when he said that five words could be used as a very good slogan, and the one he quoted could be most damaging in an election.
If we are to have descriptions on ballot papers, I believe that a returning officer should have the power to say that he will not accept a description. I think that he ought to have the right to refuse, but not have to explain his reason for refusal, rather like Questions in the Table Office and Mr. Speaker with Standing Order No. 9. At some stage in the procedure, however small his role may be, the returning officer should have some residual responsibility. I cannot see how it can be worked without it. Otherwise we will either have no descriptions on the ballot paper, because one candidate has objected to another candidate's description, or we will have evil descriptions as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. Therefore, I feel that the returning officer at that stage in the proceedings must have an end responsibility.
I hope that the Home Secretary will look at that proposal, because I do not think that so far any of us have quite got the matter right. After all, I do not suppose that we shall have another Representation of the People Bill for some years. Therefore, if we are to have these descriptions, both in national and local government elections, we have a tremendous responsibility to get it right before the Bill leaves this place for another place.

Mr. W. Howie: I am reluctant to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), especially as I hardly ever disagree with Privy Councillors in any circumstances at all if I can reasonably avoid it. I do not think that my right hon. Friend could reasonably complain about the treatment received by Mr. Speaker's Conference. We all respect that conference. It consists of Members of experience whom we respect and admire, but we do not feel that whatever they say is necessarily law, although it might become law if we agree. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker's Conference must accept that it gives us advice and we decide whether to accept it. In that respect I think that the Government are right to take other


advice than that of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
The importance of the new Clause lies in two directions. First, that this is a much simpler system than the registration system originally proposed. I do not think that the original system was in any way workable. It would have worked, but it was complicated and would have given right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite certain local problems. However we see no reason why they should be lumbered with their problems all the time.
The new Clause makes the system easier to work. It is, therefore, more valuable. I think, too, that the greatest value is that it brings in the local elections. This is a problem for local government elections rather than Parliamentary elections. There is no problem in Parliamentary elections, but there is a real problem in local government elections, especially in the Greater London area, at any rate in recent years, where the electoral divisions are rather large.
Again I must disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. He suggested that it was the responsibility of the candidate to get himself known. This is true. In a Parliamentary election it is not very difficult, because there is great interest and the organs of publicity are in full operation so the candidate can get himself known to almost every elector. However, even in Parliamentary elections, it is not unknown for an occasional voter to turn up at the polling station without being terribly sure for which candidate he wishes to vote, purely because of identification.
5.15 p.m.
In local elections this is more difficult. The organs of publicity are not at the elbow of the candidate. He has to tramp round the streets to try to get himself known and to put forward his views. Therefore, the possibilities of electors being without the necessary knowledge are much greater. In that respect the new Clause will be of great value in local government elections.
One or two problems have come up in the debate. Misdescription has been raised by a number of hon. Members. This is a possibility. A candidate, under the new Clause, can describe himself

almost in any way that he likes, and this could lead to confusion.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) suggested that his party is quite likely to find two candidates standing in a contest and confusion might arise. One great improvement in the new Clause as against the poster proposal is that, since the descriptions come at the beginning of the campaign, part of the campaign would be devoted to sorting out candidates who were opposed or who were of similar descriptions. If confusion arose it would be a factor in the campaign. In a local campaign it would be a factor of greater than usual interest. The argument about who was the correct candidate would probably receive a fair amount of publicity and there would not quite be the likelihood of danger that has geen suggested, although I do not say that there is no danger.
A serious problem was raised by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) when he talked about a description possibly being a slogan. This is a real problem and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at it. It is like the registration of children's names. To call a child Charles Barebones would be a name, but to call him Praise be to God Barebones would be a slogan.

Sir D. Glover: It has been done.

Mr. Howie: It has been done, but not for some time.

Sir D. Glover: A couple in Liverpool not long ago christened their child with the eleven names of the Liverpool football team.

Mr. Howie: I am sure that even in Liverpool the footballers have names rather than slogans. One is Ian St. John, which is a very good name. I already knew that Praise be to God Barebones had been used. That is why it came into my head.
I am under the impression—I am open to correction—that occasionally registration officers in town halls take objection to names which they regard as not true names but as slogans. I am not using Liverpool or any other football team as a guide, but where a name has been suggested along the lines of Praise be to God Barebones, although that has not


been used for some time, local registration officers have taken exception. I am not sure about the legal position—and I do not make any attempt to pronounce upon it—but it might be possible to devise a system wherein the name of a party or group was acceptable but a slogan was not. I put it no stronger than that.
I refer now to the last sentence of the Amendment moved by what I think we can regard as the official Opposition. The weakness of the Amendment seems to be that in the event of a dispute and a failure to agree—I may say that I am attracted to the general idea of some kind of arbitration or however it may be described at the beginning of the Amendment—everyone's description is wiped out, whether there are 4, 5, 6 or 20 candidates. That is a weakness if the dispute lies between two candidates only. If a candidate disagrees with the idea of party labels on ballot papers, he can ensure that there was no agreement merely by disagreeing with someone for an hour, which I fancy most right hon. and hon. Members could do without too much difficulty. In that case everyone's description would be annulled, and surely that would be wrong?

Mr. Sharples: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the same principle applies to broadcasting?

Mr. Howie: I do, and I was about to mention that the fact that it exists in broadcasting does not make it right. I was about to suggest that it was wrong here, because it was wrong in broadcasting.
I think that the Clause should be accepted. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay attention to some of the comments which have been made about it with a view, perhaps at a later stage, to amending it mildly.

Mr. Onslow: There are two troubles here. First, this is a matter which has got into the hands of the theoreticians. Theoreticians like to work to three places of decimals, and life for the rest of us is not long enough for that. Fortunately this idea has penetrated the Front Bench, to the extent that the original theoretician's paradise, as embodied in Schedule 1, has been seen to go too far down the decimal line, and instead we have a

Clause which works to only one place of decimal. That is an improvement of a kind, but we are still talking about the problem in theoretical terms which have very little relation to actual practice terms, and this is where we come to the second trouble.
The second trouble is that this is a problem which we all know is felt, if it is felt at all, in the local government sphere. Anyone who has been to local government party conferences, or taken part in parties after closely contested counts, knows how often it is said "If only there had been some means of making sure that our man's party was printed on his ballot paper against his name, the result could have been significantly different". I shall not argue that that is not so.
Given that that was the problem, with characteristic percipience the Government produced a solution to a problem which was not put to them at all. In other words, the Government produced a proposal to supply names on the ballot paper at Parliamentary and not local government elections. Here again they have come half way to meet the problem as it is by extending their proposals to both Parliamentary and local government elections. I have a feeling that life would be easier for us all if we could have had before us this afternoon a Clause which related only to local government elections, because on that basis we could have had a more serious and constructive debate.
We all know that the point at which the danger of misdescription would be most significant is at the Parliamentary level. I can see many circumstances in which misdescription could influence the result of an election. I can imagine for instance—because it is the people who will attract the fewest votes in their own right who will depend most heavily on the influence of what is printed on the ballot paper—that this Measure could have damaging consequences for the Liberal Party.
If a man puts himself down on the ballot paper as a Conservative, or a Socialist, the party machines representing the Conservative Party and the Socialist Party will have relatively little difficulty in clearing the electorate's mind on that statement. But where there is


a party with smaller resources, the fact that one candidate calls himself a Liberal, and another calls himself a liberal, might be something which a relatively minor party like that might find it difficult to overcome.
For that, and for other reasons, this proposal at the Parliamentary level is not nearly so attractive in practice as the theoreticians have made it seem, and I wish that we could have agreed to tackle the problem where we know it exists instead of spending a Second Reading and a Committee stage talking about a problem which is of relatively little significance before getting down to considering in part the problem which we all know faces us.
Having said that, I want to follow one thing said by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). Like him, I was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I shall not seek to be a member of any other Speaker's Conference which works under the rules under which we worked, because I believe that not only did we waste a great deal of time, but that, quite inadvertently, we have been guilty of wasting much of the time of the House, due to the fact that we came to conclusions which seemed sound to us on the basis of considerations which were fairly penetrating, but the House has not the faintest idea what led us to those conclusions. I believe that if we are ever to have another Speaker's Conference, it must sit in public, and not merely have its proceedings published. I believe that it would be worth while the Government formulating proposals and putting them to Mr. Speaker's Conference, rather than the other way round.
When that situation arises, I suppose in about 20 years' time, no doubt no hon. Member present now will be in the House. [Interruption.] Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen opposite are so confident of their appeal to the electorate that they can say now that they will be here in 1988, but that is not a boast which I should be presumptuous enough to make. I do not know whether any other hon. Member wishes to make it, but I hope that when that time comes what I have said will strike a chord in somebody's memory.
It is clear from what has been said this afternoon that nearly everybody in this Chamber wants to have another look

at the Clause, and we are fairly certain that it will come before us again with certain amendments from another place. That seems to be a pity. I do not think that we need have got ourselves into this predicament. I believe that there were other and better ways of tackling this issue, and I am sorry that we have wasted so much time on it this afternoon.

Mr. Coe: I support the Clause. That is hardly surprising, as I have introduced two private Members Bills on this very subject. It is worth reminding the House that I was faced with the difficulty which the Government faced when they introduced the provisions for the placing of descriptions on ballot papers, namely, should we have a system whereby there is registration, and therefore a party has the sole right to use a particular label, or should there be a more free-for-all system, which is what we have opted for in this Clause?
I have maintained all along that this question of misdescription is over-stated. I do not believe that there will be anything like the amount of misdescription which has been suggested this afternoon. Nevertheless, I recognise, and indeed my right hon. Friend recognised, that there will be some slight danger of this. But to those who say, "We are all in favour of the principle, but we do not like this proposal" I say that we can go on like this for ever, because, whatever system is produced, it will have certain disadvantages.
To those who say that people might be misguided by the description on the ballot paper, I would remind them that in Wandsworth, in 1967, 6,000 of the electorate were misguided by the fact that there were candidates of the same name, and people could not differentiate between them. The consequence was that 6,000 people cast their votes for a candidate they did not want. To my mind this demonstrates, in stark form, the real need for a system of party labels on ballot papers. I think that this objection about misdescription is overstated, and I believe that the system as now detailed in the Clause will meet most of the objections which have been put forward.
Perhaps I might now follow up one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), and others. I agree with those


who say that the suggestion put forward originally by the Opposition of having a statement of the affiliations of candidates at the polling stations is not enough. But I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between having descriptions on such a notice and having them on the ballot paper. I do not know why it is suggested that the returning officer should have responsibility for publishing ballot papers but should not take responsibility for publishing the notice which is given to the general public when they come to the polling station. After all, it would be just as much an official document as the ballot forms on which electors put their crosses. I therefore agree with the difficulties that have been mentioned in connection with the Conservative Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
I was interested in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton in connection with possible objections by candidates to the descriptions of others. Despite what has been said about this, I suggest that we should go ahead with new Clause 2 as drafted and see how it works in practice. I would remind the House that descriptions do not suddenly appear on the scene. A candidate will have campaigned under the same description for three, four or more weeks before polling day.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has suggested the grouping of candidates. This idea was suggested to me when I was in the process of framing my two private Bills. It has some merit in that this grouping procedure is adopted in certain countries which allow party labels to appear on ballot papers. I do not feel very strongly on this but this idea could perhaps be combined with that of party labels as an extra help to electors. After all, if a ballot paper contains 20 names it would be helpful to have the candidates standing for the various parties grouped together so that people may more easily differentiate.
As hon. Members know, I have lived with this subject for some time. When people argue that this is only a local government matter, they are mistaken. I accept that, from the practical point of view of avoiding confusion, it matters

particularly at local government elections, but we should be wrong not to accept that there are occasions in Parliamentary elections when the availability of the political descriptions of candidates on ballot papers will be of assistance.
We should accept that by adopting the idea of using party labels on ballot papers we are, at the same time, recognising that political parties exist in our constitution. That is not a bad thing. At long last, after many years of constitutional development, we are recognising publicly that political parties exist. Having accepted that, we are saying that we are not ashamed of stating it publicly. I welcome the Measure and congratulate my right hon. Friend for having dealt with this subject. These provisions will be of great assistance to our democratic system and if any of the difficulties which have been forecast arise when the Bill becomes law, we can make the necessary amendments later.

Mr. Tony Gardner: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate. A constituency delegation arrived at the House and my attendance was required elsewhere. For that reason the House will not wish to hear me for long. I thank my right hon. Friend for adopting the view, if not the method, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) in an Amendment which we tabled in Committee.
Although much has been said about deliberately evil slogans being used, the difficulty is that evil slogans can be put before the electorate by all sorts of means. In a number of West Midlands constituencies in the 1964 General Election every householder had deliberately evil labels placed through the letter box by representatives of a certain political party on the day before the election. Perhaps there will be an opportunity at a future time to consider the extent to which evil slogans are allowable in our political process.

Mr. Onslow: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that we should consider this matter before dealing with descriptions and other things which will appear on ballot papers? If there is any time when this matter should be dealt with, it is surely now.

Mr. Gardner: This matter will have to be considered thoroughly. The very basis of our political liberty is that we can say what we like in public. The House would not wish to change the law in this respect—the law which deals with the way in which we behave in issuing propaganda—without extremely careful thought. For that reason, we cannot consider it now.
The question of deliberately false or misleading descriptions is raised in the Conservative Amendment. I do not like the way in which it is dealt with there, although I appreciate the difficulty of dealing with a man who describes himself as a member of a political party when he is not. I am not sure of the answer. Last Session the House passed the Trade Descriptions Act which made it a criminal offence for advertisers to apply false descriptions to goods and services. Considering the rights which objectors have to civil redress in this connection, perhaps, in terms of misrepresentation, we can get round the problem in another way. Other than that, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done and hope that the House will welcome the new Clause.

Mr. Callaghan: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the points that have been made in what has been an extremely interesting debate. I am grateful for the observations that have been made, although most of those who took part have removed themselves from the Chamber, and are no doubt engaged on important work elsewhere.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) is in his place, I congratulate him because we are concerned with a process which he has been advocating since he first came to the House. His gentle but firm persistence is about to be rewarded by this Measure appearing on the Statute Book. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has joined him in that work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe raised the same point as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), and I must tell them that the House cannot have it both ways. I originally put forward a proposal that would have had the effect of copyrighting a party's name

so that the party would be protected against misrepresentation. At that time the House said, "We do not like that, We do not want to be protected in that way. There should be other ways of doing the job." I now come forward with the alternative; namely, that people should be free to describe themselves as they feel right, but I am told, "You are leaving yourself open to misrepresentation. Why cannot we copyright the names of parties "? What am I to do?

Mr. Nigel Birch: Nothing.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps the third alternative, so to speak, is to do nothing. The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), not for the first time in history, coupled with his hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), are totally at variance with public opinion. If there is one thing about which everybody is agreed—with the exception of a few hon. Gentlemen opposite who have expressed a contrary view—it is that the public want this service. The correspondence reaching not only me but the Conservative Central Office bears this out, and I speak not without some knowledge of the subject. If we omit the third course, which is to do nothing, we have a choice between copyrighting the parties' title or having what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe described as a free-for-all. The House having said that it does not wish to copyright, we are left with a free-for-all, and that raises a different kind of difficulty from that raised by my original proposal. On balance, it is an advance on my original proposal in that it deals with local elections, which my original proposal did not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has left the Chamber. I am sure that he is engaged on worthwhile business. But he went to town on this issue with all the outraged dignity of which he is capable because we had not accepted the whole of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. In fact, we have accepted 60 out of 71, and it is an exaggeration of language to say that the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference have been flouted. Indeed, even if they have been flouted, it is by the decision of the


House of Commons, and not even Mr. Speaker's Conference can hope to override that. On some of the issues on which the conference recommended they were divided. There was no universal light from heaven which descended on these 24 Apostles.

Mr. C. Pannell: Nor on the Cabinet.

Mr. Callaghan: That is exactly the point that I am making. My right hon. Friend shows less than his usual perception. I am saying that these are matters of judgment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has returned. Perhaps I may point out to him one example to illustrate my argument. There was the question of public opinion polls and betting.

Sir Donald Kaberry: That was a silly decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Callaghan: Even the hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, say that the decisions of Mr. Speaker's Conference were silly and then, on the other hand, say that the House of Commons should not override them. By almost general assent the House of Commons decided that that was a "silly" decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference. There was no unanimity on this point in Mr. Speaker's Conference. There was a majority view and a minority view, and the Government reserve the right to think again and to put their proposals before the House.
There were other points, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby must know—he served on the Conference for three years—on which there was not a unanimous view but a majority and a minority view. Why should the House of Commons be excluded from considering this or any other issues which it wishes to consider, despite the fact that the accumulated wisdom of our very revered seniors on Mr. Speaker's Conference has indicated a certain course? I must reserve the right of the House of Commons or of the Government of the day, whichever Party it represents, to say to Mr. Speaker's Conference, "We thank you warmly. We think you have done much useful work. We accept the great majority of your recommendations. But we also reserve the right to differ

and to ask the House of Commons to consider the result". If he reflects, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby will think that his language this afternoon did not match the situation at all.

Mr. Houghton: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I said that my right hon. Friend spoke in a spirit of outraged dignity. I hope that he does not want to repeat it now, but I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. Houghton: I apologise for my late arrival in the Chamber on this occasion, but hon. Members always have to be in two places at once. I have just about managed it. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that six major proposals were made by Mr. Speaker's Conference, that four were rejected, that one was modified and that the other was accepted. That is not a very good score for Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Callaghan: I had said that I knew that my right hon. Friend was engaged on important work although he was not in the Chamber.
In reply to his intervention, I suggest that much depends on what one means by "important". My right hon. Friend is using a value judgment. He selects certain recommendations which he considers were the most important, but other hon. Members may take a different view. However, I repeat that we are all genuinely grateful for the work done by the Conference, but we must reserve the right to differ and to ask the House of Commons to reach different conclusions if it wishes to do so.
The hon. Member for Woking said that there was a case next time for the publication of the evidence. In the light of the experience which we have had on this occasion, I agree entirely with that view, if I am not out of order in saying so. The Government, too, have a great deal of evidence, and they gave much consideration to these matters. I am sure that it would have been better if we had seen the evidence put before Mr. Speaker's Conference. That might have saved us and the House a good deal of time.
5.45 p.m.
But I must resist his view that the Government have been focusing on the


issue on which the House did not want to focus. The House of Commons did not raise this matter. The Government intimated as long ago as July that they thought there was a case for putting labels on ballot papers. No one else had made that proposition. I put forward the difficulties at the time. It is fair to say that the Government have made all the running on this issue. Indeed, that gave rise to some of the complaints which were made. To the extent that consideration by the House has altered our approach, that is a matter on which the House can congratulate itself.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley that it is not fair to complain about lack of time. The recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference have been known since last February.

Sir D. Glover: I do not know how long it is since those recommendations were known, but the complaint is about the lack of time given to consider the Government's proposals.

Mr. Callaghan: The agents knew last February what Mr. Speaker's Conference proposed. They have known since July what were the Government's recommendations. Everything except the alterations in detail, the machinery details, has been known for a considerable time, and certainly long enough for people to consider their attitudes. As the House knows, there is a particular reason for proceeding with the Bill rather earlier than otherwise would have been the case.
I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) and I agree that this proposal will be important for local government elections. That is its major virtue. I promise him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby that I was not lacking in a sense of how many civil servants would be needed under the original scheme. We need not argue it, but the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies was quite capable of handling it. He would have had to draw up two registers a year, and two sixpenny exercise books, would have been enough for most of it. The work which was entailed was largely on the part of the Conservative Associations, which would have had to register individually. That was the major difficulty under my

original proposal. I thought that my right hon. Friend was indulging in the usual amount of his vigorous hyperbole, and I can assure him that no great army of civil servants would have been involved.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked about the arrangement of the names in alphabetical order, and my hon. Friend the Member for Middle-ton and Prestwich asked about grouping. I hope that the description which the candidate can use in future, if the House agrees to the Clause, will mitigate if not eradicate most of the difficulty. No matter what is the order in which names appear on the ballot paper, whether there are 20 names or three names, candidates will have descriptions against their names, and if they choose the descriptions by which they want to be known, then the electors will be able to make the "pick of the pops". To that extent the case for grouping is overridden by this proposal and I intend to go no further with the matter.
As with any scheme, there are disadvantages as well as advantages. Despite the plea put to me by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), I cannot promise that the Government will wish to put forward any further proposals on this issue, because whatever further proposals we put forward could be revised even further—and further; and there must be finality at some stage. Mr. Speaker's Conference considered the matter, the House considered it in a debate on the White Paper, it considered it again on Second Reading and in Committee, and we are considering it again on Report. I must advise the House that this is the scheme upon which, in the end, we must vote and upon which we must decide.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

REPEAL OF SECTION 4 (3) OF THE ACT OF 1949

Section 4 (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Lubbock.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This pursues a matter I raised in Committee about the position of patients in psychiatric hospitals. This Clause is slightly wider than the Amendment put forward in Committee because it deals not only with those who are called "informal" under the Mental Health Act, 1959, but with all patients in psychiatric hospitals under Sections of the Mental Health Act excluded by previous Amendments.
Since we discussed this matter in Committee I have been in touch with the National Association for Mental Health and have made inquiries about the number of patients who might have been affected by the previous Amendment. The numbers are quite substantial, as a letter I received from the Association on 13th December will show. In a hospital in Cambridge where the total number of patients is 700, there are 200 who are short-term patients still registered for voting at their home addresses, and a further 150 patients who have no other address than the hospital at which they might be able to register.
This brings me to the crux of the difficulty. The Home Office has wisely issued advice to registration officers that where a patient in such a hospital has a relative at whose address he or she can register the patient is to be included as normally registered at that address, but, if the patient has no relative or friends with whom he normally stays and is a long-stay patient at the hospital, he is registered at the hospital itself. Under Section 4 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, he cannot do so because that subsection specifically debars the hospital being used as the qualifying address.
Informal patients are patients who enter hospitals voluntarily under the Mental Health Act, 1959. We have had some discussions with the National Association of Mental Health, not only about the number of patients affected but also on the question of whether it is right to make this distinction between informal patients and those who are "detained" under one or other of the Sections of the Mental Health Act, 1959. Contrary to what may be popularly supposed, it is not that detained patients are less able to exercise

a franchise than informal patients. That is why I propose this Clause.
It would mean that any person who is a patient in such an institution is able to register at that address and to exercise his vote if he is fit to do so. There is the ultimate safeguard that the presiding officer in the polling station may stop a person voting unless he is able to answer a simple question or if he is disorderly in any way. Matrons and medical attendants responsible for the health of patients who may be enfranchised by this proposal would be very careful to see that those patients were medically fit to go to a polling station and exercise the vote in a proper manner.

Mr. Onslow: This seems to be the crucial part of the hon. Member's argument. Is he suggesting that a duty should be laid on the medical staff to satisfy themselves that patients are fit before they go out to vote and that there should also be some indication to the presiding officer that it would be appropriate for him to ask a question to establish their fitness? How could this be done when there might be as many as 500 such people on one voting register?

Mr. Lubbock: One would not of course put such duties on a presiding officer other than those under the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which requires them to make sure that the person on the electoral register can answer that test. That is a safeguard against anyone who is totally incapable being allowed to go into a polling station to cast a vote. It is not that the matron or medical staff should be made in any way responsible for matters which are the concern of the registration officer or the presiding officer at the polling station.
The situation is rather analogous to that of patients in geriatric homes in Part III accommodation, many of whom may not be fit to vote. We have not found any practical difficulty there. I do not think there would be more difficulty in the case of psychiatric hospitals. This matter is rather more complicated than we envisaged it when it was first raised in Committee. The hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate has been making inquiries and I have been in touch with him since the Committee stage. I hope


that he will give an assurance that this matter will be fully considered before the Bill reaches another place and that the difficulty will be resolved.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I remind the House that this question was considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference. I think that in this case the conference got it wrong. The last time we discussed the matter we discovered something about the general problem of mental health and I think we shall pursue it a little further today. This is an example of discussion leading to more essential truths than one had in the first instance.
As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, we have discussed this at some length in recent days. The purpose of the new Clause is to pursue the question of registering informal patients in mental hospitals. It goes further than that now, but it started with the attempt to deal with informal patients in mental hospitals and follows an undertaking which I gave on 11th December.
The present situation was put clearly when we last discussed this subject, but it is worth repeating that under Section 4 (3) of the 1949 Act patients in psychiatric hospitals are not able to register there for voting purposes, whereas people in other types of hospital can be registered. If one is in a psychiatric ward of an ordinary hospital one can be registered, but if one is in a psychiatric hospital one cannot be registered. In 1949 one of the reasons given for non-registration was that patients would not want to reveal that they were in mental hospitals. We have come a long way since then in our treatment of mental health and our attitude to mental health.
Informal patients can be registered at their home addresses. Mr. Speaker's Conference and the Home Office dealt with this point for the last registration in advice about Form A. This has led to more registrations of this type. Since that time we have all been making inquiries. The situation is—this information comes from the National Association for Mental Health, which has advised the hon. Gentleman and which has written to me—that about 50 per cent. of all patients in mental hospitals are not registered.
6.0 p.m.
There is little doubt but that we should start from the principle that informed opinion wants to treat all patients in mental hospitals, with exceptions to which I will come, in the same way; and, if possible, in the same way as patients in ordinary hospitals. Mental ill health is not shameful in the way that might have been thought at one time.
On investigation, the distinction between informal patients—Section 5 or Part IV patients—and detained patients—Part V patients—is of little value. Some informal patients may be more mentally ill than those who are detained. To start by trying to draw a distinction between informal and detained would be to go in the wrong direction.
One aspect of mental ill health which is important is the question of lucidity. This is not decided by knowing whether someone is a Part IV patient or a Part V patient, just as lucidity is not, as we find in ordinary life, the distinction between the possession of a university degree and not having one. Lucidity is rather difficult to define. To add to the problem, there are distinctions between types of detained patients which do not make policy decisions easier.
We must start by treating all mental patients in the same way. The Amendment the hon. Gentleman moved in Committee would not have met the point. Nor is the analogy between convicted prisoners and detained patients a very fruitful avenue. We were thinking about that in Committee in the hope that there was some analogy between being a convicted prisoner and being a detained mental patient. The real distinction is that in one case imprisonment is punishment. In the other case, the detention is for treatment.
Before the Bill reaches another place, I should like to consider the effect of registering all patients. I should not like anyone to think that there are not problems in this respect, because there are. There are problems in Statute law and in common law, because historically important decisions have been made. Many years ago we used to crack the joke that the two classes of persons not allowed the vote were lunatics and peers, to use the phraseology of 160 to 170


years ago. I want to look into the legal aspect more deeply.
The question of swamping the electorate should be considered. There is a difference between an ordinary hospital and one in which there are more long-term patients. In an ordinary hospital there may be the chronic sick, but there is a much larger proportion of people who are in for a relatively short period and who are registered at home. The other day, on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), we discussed the question of the electoral role in Padstow being swamped by people possessing votes because of holiday cottages. If that was a valid point there, I am sure that it becomes a valid point in other constituencies, such as that of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who has a large number of people who are in hospitals of this type. It is not true of ordinary hospitals.
The hon. Member for Woking raised the question of the difficulty of deciding whether a person is fit to vote. I am advised by the Ministry of Health that there would not be much difficulty about deciding whether a person was capable of voting on the day. If the polling booth were inside the hospital, I presume that a doctor would decide. If the polling booth were outside, as I presume would be more normal, the presiding officer has the right to decide already under electoral law whether someone is fit to vote. If there were a high proportion of people who were mentally ill, given the different attitude we now take to this problem, it could be that we were putting on the local presiding officer a burden which perhaps he should not have to bear. In any event, if a patient is legally detained he would not be allowed out anyway. So the geography of the polling booth would decide it.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am interested in the Minister's explanation. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), there are more mentally disturbed patients, or patients with mental diseases, being treated at home than there are in hospital. It is not as if we would be creating a new problem. This is a problem which already exists outside hospitals and which we cope with satisfactorily. There is no

reason why we could not cope with it satisfactorily within hospitals.

Mr. Rees: This is so, but the problem of a largish number being together raises problems.

Mr. Onslow: The parties would send their election literature to everybody on the register. It would be in the interests of people who were thought not to be fit to vote that they should not get election literature. It would raise many extremely difficult problems on the administrative side for the hospital staffs concerned.

Mr. Rees: This is one of the reasons why, although I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's objection, I would ask him again to leave the matter with me. We will certainly consider it. We start with the premise that we want to be helpful. However, there must be further investigation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new Clause.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. I realise that he could not solve this complicated problem in a week. I hope that the inquiries he is to conduct between now and when the Bill reaches the Lords will be fruitful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

OTHER AMENDMENTS AS TO PROXY AND POSTAL VOTING

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 41, at end insert:

(1A) The provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 as to postal voting at parliamentary or local government elections by persons who are unable or likely to be unable, by reason of physical incapacity, to go in person to the polling station or, if able to go, to vote unaided shall apply in like manner to persons who are unable or likely to be unable by reason of religious observance, except that any application to be treated as an absent voter, if it is based on the ground of religious observance, shall be for a particular election only.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I suggest that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 22, Amendment No. 23, Amendment No. 24, and Amendment No. 43.

Mr. Rees: The Amendment has been tabled to try to meet the wishes of the House. In Committee on 27th November it was indicated that the Government wanted to be helpful in dealing with voting arrangements which might be made to enable electors who were unable, because of their religious beliefs, to cast their votes on certain days to vote by post.
During the debate the point was made that the problem is not confined to the question of members of the Jewish community voting at local government elections held on Saturdays. Other weekdays are sometimes observed by them as holy days and their beliefs would not permit them to vote on those days either. There are also other religious bodies, such as Seventh Day Adventists and members of enclosed religious orders, to be considered.
These Amendments make an overall approach to the problem by enabling people to apply for postal voting facilities on the ground of religious observance. Postal voting facilities are to be available to them in the same way as they are available, under Sections 12 (1) (c) and 23 (1) (c) of the 1949 Act, to the blind or physically incapacitated.
There is, however, one difference which I should explain to the House. The postal voting facilities to which I have just referred are granted for an indefinite period. Our view is that it would be wrong to provide indefinite postal voting on religious grounds. Different days of the week may be involved, some elections would not be covered by it anyway, for some religious faiths a Thursday would not be a bad day, the nature of the difficulty might depend on the time of the year, and so on. My advice, therefore, in this instance is that it would be right to give these postal voting facilities only for the particular election.
Further, we consider that postal voting facilities should not be given for unsupported or undisclosed religious beliefs, so the Amendment to Schedule 4 will enable the regulations—which will have to follow later in any event—to require an applicant for postal voting facilities to produce evidence in support of his application. Much the same applies now in relation to the production of a doctor's certificate—as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) knows—in

connection with certain postal voting arrangements.
I hope that this group of Amendments meets the wish of the House.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I can foresee some difficulties here. I appreciate that a lot of good thought has gone in to the matter and there is a lot of good behind the idea, but I am concerned about the way the regulations would work. The hon. Gentleman has told us that there would be regulations to ensure, presumably, that people do not dream up some sort of religious objection in order to have a postal vote if they want to go on holiday, and so on. Obviously, if one wishes to confine this on grounds of religious observance, there must be some sort of rules. My worry is that I fail to see how they can be drawn so as to deal with abuse.
Who is to decide what is a religion and what is not? No one is in a position to decide that. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is a fine idea, and there will have to be regulations, without telling us how it will work. I cannot see how it can possibly work in practice.
It seems to me to open the door to anyone who wants a postal vote for almost any reason. Perhaps the Minister may like to think about that. Ought we not to open the door completely and allow people to vote by post at any time if they want to?

Dr. Winstanley: I warmly welcome this group of Amendments, which go a long way to meet a problem which I raised in the Chamber in the second week after my election to the House. It had been brought to my notice that there was this difficulty, though I had not been aware of it. In my constituency there is a large Jewish congregation in Gatley who, I understand, are very orthodox and who find it impossible to vote on Saturdays. The local rabbi advised them that it was impossible for them to vote in person at a local election even with the arrangements then existing. I tabled a Question at that time asking the Home Secretary to do what is now proposed, that is, to give postal votes to persons who have religious difficulties of any kind which prevent their voting in person. I am very glad that the Government are now making those arrangements, and I


accept that certain checks and controls will be necessary.
I agree that this is the best method, rather than avoiding polling on a Saturday. Some hon. Members will have received a letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews saying that they would not themselves wish to campaign actively for polling in certain urban district council elections to be removed from Saturdays where there are only a few Jews involved and where it may well be that Saturday suits the convenience of other persons.
However, a further point emerges here. The holding of local elections on a Saturday keeps out of electioneering work, the driving of cars and so on, members of Jewish congregations. Therefore, while I agree that what the Government propose is the right way round the difficulty, I hope that the holding of elections on Saturdays will be avoided where reasonably possible.
There is no provision as yet for postal votes in rural district council elections. We ought to do something about that small remaining loophole. On the broad issue, however, we warmly welcome what the Government propose.

Mr. Sharples: We on these benches welcome the Amendments. It is likely that only a small number of people will be affected and that the main problem arises only in respect of elections on Saturdays. None the less, it is an important principle, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting the wishes of the House.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) questioned the value of the regulations. These regulations will require affirmative Resolution of the House, as will a large number of others, and they can then be discussed. I am firmly advised that it is by no means impossible to arrange matters satisfactorily. The question will be much the same as that which applies to doctors' certificates now. There may be the difficult religious organisation, but, if it be true that what we propose will open the door, my response is to ask how much more opening of the door there would have been from giving postal votes to holiday makers, an idea which was thought by hon. Members opposite to be

an excellent one when we debated the matter on an earlier occasion. However, I make no narrow party point. My advice is that it would not open the door in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I am sure that the House accepts the principle as right. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) met the Board of Deputies some time ago, she agreed to look into it. It has been debated, and, in accordance with the wish expressed on both sides of the House, we have done our best to meet the religious question raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

BROADCASTING DURING ELECTIONS

6.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 8, leave out lines 1 to 12.

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that we take at the same time the following four further Amendments:
No. 4, in page 8, line 13, leave out 'Subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'Subsection (1)'.
No. 5, in page 8, line 43, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
No. 51, in Schedule 5, page 46, line 48, column 1, leave out' and (2)'.
No. 52, in Schedule 5, page 46, line 50, column 2, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

The Attorney-General: Amendment No. 3 is the principal Amendment and the remainder are consequential drafting Amendments. The subsection which the main Amendment would remove from the Bill makes it an offence for any person, in managing or editing a broadcast about a particular constituency, to favour any of the candidates taking part in the broadcast. This provision was discussed at some length at a late hour in Committee, and it is right that I should frankly admit that it was criticised on both sides. Unhappily, the Government were most unfairly accused by one hon. Member, contrary to the usual tenor of


his contributions to debate, of introducing the provision for an improper motive. I endeavoured then to explain, as I repeat now, the perfectly innocent history of the matter.
The Clause as a whole derives from a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference, part of which was that broadcasts involving candidates should be allowed only if all
are given an equal opportunity to state their views".
In an attempt to give statutory form to that conception of equality of opportunity, the Government took the view that the proper course was to make it an illegal practice to favour one candidate at the expense of another. That there should be no such favouring is common ground. The question is whether sanctions would be necessary or effective to prevent such favouring.
I readily conceded in Committee that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are under an obligation to maintain political impartiality. This is an important duty in view of the potential influence which this medium of communication may have. In Committee, however, the general view expressed on both sides was that it was unnecessary to reinforce that general duty by creating this offence. That opinion was stressed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). It was urged also that the scope of the offence was uncertain and that the threat of prosecution would unfairly handicap interviewers and editors who might: honestly be striving to provide an impartial view of a local election situation and campaign.
I thought that there was force in the argument that the subsection was unnecessary and that we could rely on the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to see that candidates taking part in broadcasts were fairly treated. I therefore undertook that the Government would reconsider the matter before Report. This my right hon. Friend and I have done, and we have also considered representations about the matter made on behalf of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. We have decided that the best course is to drop the subsection, and I hope that this will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Sharples: The Attorney-General has taken the view that the Committee generally expressed in the debate, and I am sure that the decision is right. We are glad that that provision has gone.

Dr. Winstanley: I, too, welcome the move and everything the Attorney-General said. When he declines to do something he does it so amiably that when he agrees the effect is almost overwhelming.
We readily accept that the parentage of the subsection was wholly innocent. It was its operation which would have proved guilty, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to accept that there is no alternative to relying on the general duty of broadcasters to be fair and to leave the matter at that. We greatly welcome his action, which is in accord with what we recommended earlier.
I have said so often in our debate on the Bill that the Government are doing what we asked them to do that I begin to wonder whether we should have drafted it and let them table some Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 4 in page 8, line 13 leave out 'Subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'Subsection (1)'.

No. 5, in page 8, line 43 leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Clause 10

BANDS OF MUSIC, TORCHES, FLAGS AND BANNERS

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 9, line 1, leave out Clause 10.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Clause 11

ELECTION AGENTS, POLLING AGENTS AND COUNTING AGENTS

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, Amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 23 leave out from 'a' to end of line 24 and insert:
'parliamentary constituency comprising the area or any part of it, or in a borough which adjoins the area, or in an urban or rural district or, in Scotland, an electoral division which adjoins it'.


In Committee on 10th December an undertaking was given to the Opposition that we would improve subsection (3), which provides that
… the office of an election agent for a local government election shall be within the local government area or in a borough or urban district which adjoins that area.
The Committee noted that the subsection was an improvement on the previous provision, but it was pointed out that there could be a further improvement by taking into account that it might be desirable to use an office in an adjoining rural district or local government area which was in the same parliamentary constituency but which did not adjoin the area for which the election was being held.
I think that the Amendment meets the needs of that situation.

Mr. Sharples: So far as I can see, the Amendment meets the point raised by a number of my hon. Friends, and we are grateful to the Under-Secretary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is Government Amendment No. 8, with which I suggest we take Government Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 40, all of which are linked.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 9, leave out lines 25 to 28.
The object of the Amendment is to remove the provision designed to substitute the phrase "candidate's observers)" for the phrase "counting agent (s)" wherever the latter appears in the Representation of the People Act, 1949. The other Amendments are consequential.
The Government propose to continue the use of the phrase "counting agent (s)" which is in use at present. The change to "candidate's observer (s)" was made to meet the representations of the Electoral Advisory Conference that there has been some confusion between the terms "counting agent" and "counting assistant". The latter is used to describe a clerk employed by the returning officer to count the votes. I have been told unofficially that in one part of the country it is the counting assistants who sit and watch the votes being counted, which

seems astonishing, but funny things can happen.
The Opposition put down an Amendment to substitute "scrutineers" for "observers". I argued that "scrutineers" had other meanings in elections. It was never our intention to seek in a roundabout way to alter the status of counting agents. It would be a brave politician who sought to do that.
After further consideration, we still cannot accept "scrutineer", but perhaps it is a good thing to leave things as they are. I have been guided by what was said by the Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) in particular.

Mr. Sharples: The Amendment meets a point we raised in Committee, when there was much debate about whether the right word was "observer" or "scrutineer". I think that on balance the Government have made the right decision in retaining the words "counting agent", which are well understood both by those who do that job and by the officials, who recognise their status.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is Amendment No. 9, with which I suggest we take Government Amendments Nos. 30 and 36.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 9, leave out lines 35 to 40 and insert:
'(b) at local government elections in Scotland (as in England and Wales) a candidate may appoint more than one polling agent to attend at a polling station, but neither at parliamentary elections nor at local government elections (in whatever part of Great Britain) shall more than one polling agent be admitted at the same time to a polling station on behalf of the same candidate.'
The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the restriction on a candidate's having only one polling agent at a polling station means that only one polling agent for each candidate may be present at any one time. The other Amendments are consequential.
The Amendments have been introduced to meet the wishes of the Committee, and I think that they will aid voluntary workers on polling day.

Mr. Sharples: The Amendment meets a point raised from this side of the Committee, and its wording is probably


better than that which we suggested. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 10, in page 10, line 1, leave out 'an observer at the count' and insert 'a counting agent'.

No. 11, in line 5, leave out from 'polling' to 'is' in line 6, and insert:
'or counting agent of his'.

No. 12, in line 10, leave out 'observers' and insert 'counting agents'.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Clause 12

USE OF POLITICAL DESCRIPTIONS IN NOMINATION PAPERS AND BALLOT PAPERS AT PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 10, line 14, leave out Clause 12.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Clause 13

DEATH OF CANDIDATE

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 12, line 26 at end insert:
(ii) a person for whom no fresh nomination is required shall be permitted to incur additional election expenses not exceeding one-third of the maximum to which he was entitled under section 8 of this Act.
This Amendment has become necessary because a period of 28 days has now been placed between the death of a candidate and the writ for the new election.
The present Statute provides that, in the case of the death of a candidate, the poll is countermanded and a fresh election takes place immediately. Surviving candidates remain nominated and case law has established that any election expenses incurred up to the time of death of a candidate continue to count as election expenses. Therefore, newly nominated candidates can spend up to the limit and surviving candidates may have little left to spend without exceeding the legal maximum.
This will be nonsense now that the period of 28 days has been placed between the two elections, because surviving candidates will be bound to cease all activity

during that period and it will be essential for them to be able to rekindle the interest of the electors in their candidature.
This Amendment is a sensible proposition and I hope that the Government will respond as sympathetically to it as they have to other Amendments we have moved in line with this.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I agree that this is a difficult situation that we should consider. If the candidates who stand again at the second poll are allowed to spend a second lot of election expenses, they will have an advantage over the new candidate. On the other hand, if they have spent to the limit on the first poll and are not allowed to incur any more expenses at the second, they will be at a disadvantage. My right hon. Friend would like to look at this point. It is one we should do something about but the question is—what? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment which will give us an opportunity to deal with the matter in another place.

Mr. Sharples: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27

COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 21, line 20, at end insert:
(2) In respect of section 15 as far as it relates to the property qualification under section 57 (6) of the Local Government Act, 1933, the provisions shall come into force at the elections held after 15th February, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: We shall also consider Amendment No. 56, in page 21, line 32, at end insert:
Provided that to the extent to which section 15 has effect for the purpose of qualification for election to or membership of a local authority, no such order shall be made in respect of that section until after the ordinary day of election of councillors in the year 1971.
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

Mr. Sharples: This is probably the most important Amendment we are discussing on Report, certainly from our point of view. We attach enormous importance to the whole of Clause 15.


We would like to have divided the House on the Clause as a whole but it is not possible to do so. I must make it clear, however, that our objections, particularly to the second half of the Clause, remain as strong as ever and that it is our intention, as we stated on Second Reading and in Committee, to put the matter right as and when opportunity occurs.
The Government forced through the second part of Clause 15, which restricts the right of a person to stand for election to a local authority, with a very small majority of 13. There is no doubt that there were strong feelings not confined to this side of the House, that the Government were committing a grave error of judgment in forcing that provision through.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not selected the Amendment which would have left out Clause 15 and the hon. Gentleman must now come to Amendment No. 18.

Mr. Sharples: Given that the Government are determined to force through this restriction on the right of a person to stand for election, we come now to the question of the time at which it should become operative. There is a certain degree of urgency in reaching a decision about this.
The Bill will come into operation in the early part of next year. In spring, 1969, about 500 borough and urban district councils will be holding elections. I do not know, and I do not suppose the Home Secretary does, how many councillors already sitting on those councils will be deprived of the right to allow their names to go forward for nomination in the spring elections.
There is also the element that we have no idea of what will be the effect of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government. Neither we nor the Government have seen its report. It will take some time for its report and recommendations to be studied, for the views of the Government to be made known and for legislation to be brought in and implemented.
It may well be that, after the Royal Commission has reported, and after the Government have decided to accept certain of its views, the vast majority of

those who are to be deprived of the right to stand for election to local councils in the next year or so will be able to put their names forward again. Thus, unless we impose some form of time control on Clause 15, a large number of people will have to drop out of local government for a few years—and I doubt very much whether, once having dropped out, they will come in again.
I do not believe that any political party or any organisation seeking representation on a local council—and this applies equally to the Labour Party as to the Conservative Party—can afford to see these people, with all their knowledge and experience, dropping out of local government. The Amendment would, therefore, postpone the coming into operation of the relevant part of Clause 15 until elections which take place after 15th February 1972. This would have two effects, both of them intentional.
First, anyone standing for election now or who is already a member of a local council would know that he will not be deprived of the right to stand again for the Council he now serves. Secondly, the date of February, 1972, probably gives a reasonable time for the House to consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission and to learn what recommendations the Government intend to implement. We attach great importance to this Amendment and I give fair warning to the Home Secretary that, unless he is prepared to go a very long way towards meeting us on this point, we shall have no option but to divide the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest and some suspicion to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), for it seems that the date chosen in his Amendment could have some relevance to an event which will be of particular importance to hon. Members and which might take place between now and 1972.
There are many Conservative voters in my constituency. Some of them might be seeking representation only to be thwarted in their efforts by people who live outside the borough and who already hold seats in their areas. The people of Hull have only one opportunity to stand for local government, and


that is to be members of the City Council. However, when I study the names of some of the representatives on Hull City Council who live outside the borough I find that, far from being deprived of an opportunity to serve the community, they have a remarkable opportunity open to them. They have parish councils, rural district councils and county councils on which to serve. There is no reason why they should not fight for seats on all of these councils, thus giving them the opportunity of plurality of membership of all three. Indeed, there was such a case. A member of Hull City Council was also a member of his rural district council and a member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not now discussing Clause 15. That is already in the Bill. We are discussing the date of part of it coming into operation.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that people were being deprived of an opportunity to serve the local community and that, by postponing the date, they would be able to continue in this service until the Maud Committee reported. I was suggesting that hon. Gentlemen opposite might have had other interests in mind, apart from the report of that Committee, and that the people in question had ample opportunity to serve. People who do not live in areas covered by parish councils nevertheless have an opportunity to serve on the councils of their non-county boroughs and county councils. I believe that the Amendment is a lot of cant.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): There can be no doubt that Clause 15 was considered by both sides of the House to be extremely important. More than one Division took place on it. It would be wrong of me, however, to rehearse now the arguments which were adduced when we discussed that provision. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) should not tempt me to do so.
The Amendment seeks to postpone the coming into operation of a small part of Clause 15; the part which deals solely with the property qualification based on land ownership. It is important to note at the outset that it would affect the position in England and Wales because it is

only to those areas that the proposal applies. There is no such property qualification applying to Scotland. If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam desires to do justice to certain councils, he should make it perfectly clear that he is concerned solely with England and Wales.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We had a considerable debate about the position of Scotland in this connection in Committee. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman firmly came out against such a proposal on that occasion.

Mr. Ross: That is irrelevant to what I am saying. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean no change in the position of Scotland under the Bill; the nonresident franchise in Scotland would still be abolished. It is important to note that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is merely seeking to preserve for a short time a property qualification that is based on land ownership, and I would have thought that that was the weakest of all cases.

Mr. Sharples: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He knows perfectly well that we moved an Amendment concerning the rights of those who work in an area and that the Government rejected it. At this stage we can only attempt to delay the process.

Mr. Ross: Exactly. I am informing the House of exactly what the Amendment would do. I recall as well as the hon. Gentleman what took place on Report. The House is entitled to know precisely what would happen if the Amendment were accepted, particularly since a Division is likely to take place on it. What the law requires is ownership of freehold or leasehold land within the area of the local authority concerned, and ownership of land need be no more than notional to give a qualification for election.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will not be surprised when I advise hon. Members to reject the Amendment. If we accepted it we would be reversing a decision of the House, which has decided to abolish the nonresident qualification. Lest there be any dubiety about the intention of the Government, I assure the House that we


propose that the abolition of the nonresident franchise should become effective with the 1970 registers and so affect the local elections in 1970. In Clause 27 (3) our intention is that, in connection with the property qualification provision, the appointed day should be before the local elections of 1970, so that the loss of the non-resident franchise and the loss of the property qualification should operate at the same time, and that is in 1970.

Mr. Lubbock: Is there any reason why the two dates should be the same?

Mr. Ross: Yes, for certainty. It is also necessary, from the point of view of Scotland and the greater part of England, where the non-resident qualification depends on the franchise and the name appearing on the register. It is right that the disappearance of one should coincide with the disappearance of the other. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that for the property qualification, which is based on landownership, the person's name does not appear on the register.

Mr. Sharples: Clause 27 (1) refers only to the qualification for voting at local elections. Nowhere in the Bill is there a reference to the provisions applying other than when the Bill comes into operation.

Mr. Ross: I said that Clause 27 (3) referred to the appointed day. I thought that it was right, at this stage, to inform the House of what was the Government's intention. When the non-resident franchise disappears, so too will the property qualification. There is a degree of logic about that. I know what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do. Here is something that is distasteful to him. On the last occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Maryle-bone (Mr. Hogg) was remembered for his most exuberant oratory. I do not think that it was entirely relevant to the Amendment under discussion. It seemed to apply to all property or financial qualifications. At the time I am sure that the House knew what it was doing when it decided that these should be abolished. We have from the start rested on the basis of one man one vote, and that vote based upon a residential franchise. The qualification for election

is to be based upon that too. It is clear that this is the trend and has been so over the years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has already been decided. We must come back to the debate.

Mr. Ross: Having taken that decision in 1968, to suggest that we should not bring it into operation until 1972 is asking far too much. The House has taken the decision in principle, and it would be wrong to delay it for that length of time. The hon. Gentleman said that this will take us to the next election period, and he has already said that he wanted to change it. In that case it becomes a wrecking Amendment, and he should not try to be persuasive as to how reasonable he is being.
Look what would happen. It would affect the borough elections of 1969–70–71. It would affect the county council and Greater London Council elections of 1970 and the London borough elections of 1971. That would mean, with the proviso already there in respect of existing councillors, that there would be people there in 1974 on qualifications that the House has condemned in 1968. That is taking it too far and I would ask my hon. Friends to resist the Amendment.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am profoundly despressed both at the spirit and content of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I want to be particularly careful not to go back on any of the discussions we held in Committee, nor upon the Amendment which has not been selected, and I shall be so, with your help, Mr. Speaker. I shall not even comment upon the Secretary of State's departure in to those forbidden pastures. The right hon. Gentleman thought to answer the substantial case by my hon. Friend by a series of pedantries. If he had intended to argue that at a later stage the Government would alter the terms of Clause 27 affecting the commencement of the Bill, or if he had intended to assure the House that under the terms of Clause 27, which affects the commencement of the Bill, the Order in Council would be laid so as to give effects to the principle underlying the Amendment, it would have been relevant and perhaps even persuasive.
But the right hon. Gentleman has given no such assurance. He has made it clear that it is not the form of the Amendment to which he is objecting, but its substance and that the Government intend to bring this proposal into effect coin-cidentally with the commencement of the franchise point affected by Clause 27 (1). It is here that the Government's attitude is sadly partisan and depressing. Whatever view one takes about the Clause there is no doubt about its practical effects. It will disrupt the services of a great number of local authorities.
Assuming, as I have to assume for the purposes of the Amendment, that the House, by what was almost the narrowest majority of this Parliament, accepted the principle, it must still face the problem of the consequences which will occur at the date when the principle comes into effect. Whether one accepted the Liberal Party's alternative Amendment No. 56, or the Amendment which we

have moved, the point we seek to make is that if the House is determined upon this Clause, if the Government, using the serried ranks of those who are not present to hear the discussion, are intent upon forcing this Clause through, despite the advice they have received from hon. Members of great distinction on the benches opposite, they must at least mitigate the practical consequences of the Clause by giving time to local authorities to recoup their resources to meet this situation. Before advising my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote on the issue I will say that when it suits their book, the Government have not been very loth to postpone the operation of electoral provisions. They did so with the London boroughs and much good it did them.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 183.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Baker, W. H, K. (Banff)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Bessell, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pardoe, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Blaker, Peter
Hill, J. E. B.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hooson, Emlyn
Prior, J. M. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Dance, James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McAdden, Sir Stephen
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Walters, Dennis


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Webster, David


Fortescue, Tim
Marten Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Galbralth, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman



Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Grant-Ferris, R.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.






NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, Roland


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Albert


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hamling, William
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T,
Hannan, William
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Benn, Rt, Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Hazell, Bert
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blackburn, F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, Trevor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hobden, Dennis
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Howie, W.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hoy, James
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coe Denis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rose, Paul


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, E.


Cronin, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ryan, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert


Dalyell, Tarn
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, Dr Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, for (Gower)
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leadbitter, Ted
Slater, Joseph


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Dell, Edmund
Lee, John (Reading)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dickens, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dobson, Ray
Lomas, Kenneth
Symonds, J. B.


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ensor, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, Harold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirEric (Islington,E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wilson, Will am (Coventry, S.)


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, John
Winnick, David


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Gardner, Tony
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Gregory, Arnold

Schedule 1

REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL DESCRIPTIONS

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 22, line 2, leave out Schedule 1.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Schedule 2

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF PAR- LIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS RULES

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, Amendment No. 21, in page 29, line 46, at end insert:
'and at the end of the paragraph there shall be added—
Provided that if the packets are not delivered by the presiding officer personally


to the returning officer, the arrangements for their delivery shall require the approval of the returning officer"'.
In Committee, on 11th December, the Government indicated that they accepted the spirit of an Opposition Amendment to paragraph 9 of the Schedule to provide that the parliamentary election rules 44 (1), which require the presiding officer, on the close of the poll, to deliver the packets or the ballot boxes and so on, or to cause them to be delivered, to the returning officer, should provide that in the latter case, it should be by a person authorised by the returning officer. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that this Amendment meets just that point precisely.

Mr. Sharples: This Amendment does meet the point which we raised in Committee and we are grateful to the Government for accepting the proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY AMENDMENTS OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 32, line 47, at end insert:
4A. In section 12 (place and manner of voting as elector at parliamentary elections) after the word 'incapacity' in subsection (1) (c) there shall be inserted the words 'or of religious observance'.

No. 23, in page 33, line 21, at beginning insert:
(1) In section 23 (place and manner of voting as local government elector) after the word 'incapacity' in subsection (1) (c) there shall be inserted the words' or of religious observance.
(2)'

No. 24, in line 24, at end insert:
7A. In section 24 (2) (absent voting applications which are for a particular local government election only) there shall be added at the end of the subsection:
'or
(d) religious observance.

No. 25, in page 36, leave out lines 28 to 31.

No. 26, to leave out lines 32 to 35.

No. 27, to leave out lines 40 to 50 and insert:
'paragraph:—
(2) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of rule 7 of the parliamentary elections rules shall apply'.

No. 57, in page 37, line 11, at end insert:
'and in rule 7 (e) after the words "provisions of" there shall be inserted the words "rule 5 (4A), or"'.

No. 29, to leave out lines 18 to 27.

No. 30, to leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert:
26.—(1) In rule 24 (1) of the local elections rules in Schedule 3 for the words 'one polling agent to attend at each polling station' there shall be substituted the words 'polling agents to attend at polling stations'.

No. 31, to leave out lines 34 to 39.

No. 32, in line 43, after '(4)', insert 'of each of those rules'.

No. 33, in line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 on page 38.

No. 34, in page 38, leave out lines 21 to 25.

No. 35, in page 39, leave out lines 9 to 11.

No. 36, in line 24, at end insert:
27A. In Rule 33 of the parliamentary elections rules and in rule 26 of the local elections rules in Schedule 3, after paragraph (1), there shall be inserted as a new paragraph (1A)—
'(1A) Not more than one polling agent shall be admitted at the same time to a polling station on behalf of the same candidate'.

No. 37, to leave out lines 29 to 33.

No. 38, to leave out lines 36 to 41.

No. 39, in page 40, leave out lines 6 to 8.

No. 40, in line 18, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 22.

No. 41, in line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 41.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Amendment No. 42, with which we are taking the two Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to it.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 42, in page 41, line 17, at end insert:
36. In the Appendix to Schedule 3—

(a) in Forms B1, B2 and B3, after the words 'preceding this date)', there shall be inserted the words 'and in either case the candidates description, if any';
(b) in Forms D1, D2 and D3, after the column headed 'Addresses or Places of Residence' there shall be inserted a new column headed

'Description (if any)';


(c) in Forms El, E2 and E3, after the column headed 'Addresses or Places of Residence of Candidates' there shall be inserted a new column headed
'Description (if any)';
(d) in Form F, the second column shall include the description of the candidate, if any, and accordingly in that column there shall be made the following insertions—

(i) after the word 'Hamilton', of the words', salesman, Labour';
(ii) after the word 'Lanarkshire', where that word first occurs, of the words', schoolteacher, Progressive';
(iii) after the word 'Lanarkshire', where that word second occurs, of the words 'National Independent Teenage Party';

and in Note 3, after the word 'resident', where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'and his description, if any', and for the words 'unless it' there shall be substituted the words 'and description except where his address, place of residence or description'.
This Amendment is related to new Clause 2 and consequential changes in the specimen forms arising out of the change we made herein.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: As this is almost the last discussion before Christmas, I feel that there are some rather curious—

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. When you read out originally, Mr. Speaker, the Amendments you were calling, you included No. 42 at that time, and I understood that we were having a discussion on it at that time. Is that not right? That is what I understood. Mr. Speaker read out No. 42. I addressed myself to some of the points in it. I am quite happy about it but I should like to be clear about our procedure.

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing Amendment No. 42.

Mr. Hogg: There are some curious things in this Amendment and I am not altogether surprised that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) should have put down some Amendments to it. First of all, one notices the examples given in (d), which are put down by way of amendment to Form F under the the representation of the People Act, 1949. I have been at pains to look at Form F and I am bound to sav that the results are rather peculiar.
In the first place one notices that the description of the three parties, one, two, and three, attach, in the first case, after the word "Hamilton", the words "salesman, Labour". I wonder if the Secretary of State consulted the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) before making this particular selection of words. Why should the candidate for Hamilton or from Hamilton be described as "Labour" and why should the only person or party under the Amendment be Labour, the other two parties being called rather quaintly "Progressive" and "The National Teenage Party"? This is almost a direct incitement by Act of Parliament to vote Labour. Or is it because the Government realises that Labour, at the next election, will be reduced to the status of the National Teenage Party? I should like some explanation from the Secretary of State.
When I looked at Form F and what is done to the National Teenage Party I noticed that "the honourable John Morrison of Melville" is to be addressed as "National Independent Teenage Party". This can only refer to my old friend and colleague the noble Lord Margadale, and I must say that I hope that another place will substitute some other name, or perhaps some other party, because he has never been other than Conservative, as far as I know.
Why should this extraordinary selection of names and parties have been inserted when the only real party, the Labour Party, can provide all? I should like to know. It shows that in small things as in great the party opposite cannot avoid gerrymandering.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I explain to the House that the Home Secretary was right in that I did announce Amendment No. 42 at the beginning of the Debate. However, I then made a selection in which Amendment No. 42 was to be taken separately. Apparently the message did not reach the Home Secretary.

Mr. Lubbock: I put down Amendments to the Amendment to draw attention to some of the points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has just outlined. It is worthy of reflection that the Scottish election rules, which we are dealing with in this Amendment, are quite different from those provided for


England and Wales. Paragraph 34 of the Schedule provides that in the Appendix to Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act, 1949—this refers to the English and Welsh election rules—candidates are described as Labour, Conservative, Independent, Liberal. What I want to know is why the Secretary of State for Scotland should have chosen different titles to apply to candidates in Scotland.
We all know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is somewhat peculiar. I noticed, for instance, that this afternoon when he spoke from the Dispatch Box we got unsatisfactory answers, whereas the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) have given us very good and fair replies. It may not be without significance that this Amendment emanates from the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that he has chosen to present parties and candidates in such a peculiar manner in Form F.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Maryle-bone. I do not see why the Labour Party should be top of the list, and therefore I would demote the former to the bottom, which I think is a suitable place for that party in view of its electoral fortunes at the moment.
"Mrs. Mary Smith" who is number 4 in the Scottish Local Election rules on Form F is described as nothing at all. Under the proposals of the Secretary of State for Scotland she now becomes "Representative of the Labour Party". Under my proposal she is described as a public relations officer, which, I suggest, is very suitable, because the Labour Party needs a few public relations officers at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman has left the Liberal Party out of his calculations, although I am sure that in Scotland at the next election the Liberal Party will be doing extremely well, particularly in those constituencies where he thinks that the Labour Party will retain control. It would be appropriate if he recognised the realities of the situation by describing the candidate at the top of the ballot paper, Mr. John Grant of Hamilton, as the Liberal candidate, and I would put the Labour candidate right down at the bottom.
I have no objection to the National Independent Teenage Party, which I take

it is the right hon. Gentleman's way of saying that a description of less than six words is within the terms of the description Clause which we have already discussed. One could design a very long title for such a party, such as the International Anarcho-Syndicalist, etc. with six words going right across the Order Paper—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may speak only to his own Amendment, not to an Amendment he thought he would have made had he had time.

Mr. Lubbock: I have no objection to the National Independent Teenage Party, if that is what the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks is a reasonable title for the type of organisation that might be represented in the Scottish elections. If I am allowed to discuss the main Amendment as well as my Amendment to it, the right hon. Gentleman would face reality if he included the Scottish National Party on his sample ballot paper, even if it meant lengthening the list of five candidates instead of four. It is no part of my brief to speak on behalf of the Scottish National Party, but if one is trying in Form F to illustrate what will take place in an election, so that registration officers, election agents and others can see what they are meant to do, then the closer this form corresponds to the realities of the situation, the more likely it is that people will get the thing straight during an election.
It would be interesting to hear what explanation the Secretary of State for Scotland has for the way in which he has redesigned Form F in the Scottish Local Election Rules. Unless he has a good reason for setting it out in the manner he has, my Amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. Ross: With all due gravity, I ask that the Amendment should be resisted. Are we dealing with the Clause? I thought that I had moved it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is speaking for the second time by leave of the House.

Mr. Ross: By leave of the House, I am addressing myself to the Amendment, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Both.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that elections in Scotland are different from elections in England. There is no provision for the inclusion of any description on the nomination and ballot papers at local government elections held in Scotland. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will look at the specimen ballot paper in the Representation of the People Act, 1949, they will find there Messrs. Grant, Grant, Morrison and Smith, who have been on the specimen ballot paper for all these years during which no one has worried about their designations.
To come to the change that we are making, at the will of the House we have decided to introduce for the first time descriptions, and some indication must be given how this should be done. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), and I know it was kindly meant, said, as if we did not already know, that there are no Liberals in Hamilton. There are no Liberals in Lanarkshire or Rutherglen. If he wants us to face electoral facts we must do so. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to reduce the Liberal Party in the eyes of anyone reading the specimen ballot paper when it is reprinted.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many members of the National Independent Teenage Party there are in Lanarkshire?

Mr. Ross: I would be very surprised if there were a party of that name at all. We are showing the possibilities that are open to those who will stand at local elections in Scotland. We do not make it compulsory for anyone to state his designation as attached to any party.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry to intervene once again, but which does the Secretary of State for Scotland think is more likely to stand for election in Scotland, a person representing the Liberal Party or a person representing the National Independent Teenage Party?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: One intervention at a time.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not the Minister think it is unfortunate that he

should have chosen that name? Nowadays it is common to shorten names to the initial letters, and National Independent Teenage Party means N.I.T., which is an expression in common usage among young people. I hope that the Government are not suggesting that with votes at 18 that will be a proper description?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a time when he intended to stand for the Rutland Independent Party; that would have been R.I.P.
All we seek to do is to show that personal and political descriptions may be used, and such descriptions are given for the first two candidates. The third candidate is given a political description, and the last candidate is given no description, and this is deliberate. The intention is that the use of a description, whether personal or political, should be discretionary. It is proposed to amend the Forms appended to the Scottish Local Election Rules to include a reference to "description, if any", so we are trying to guide people in what is permissible.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to what, although it was said in a fairly mocking tone, was a serious question. I asked him, why does he put in these three descriptions the name of only one real national party and that his own, coupled with the names of two nonsense parties.

Mr. Ross: The Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and Independents are mentioned elsewhere in the Bill. They already have had honourable mention. The hon. John Morrison, domiciled in Lanarkshire, has been included for all these years. I dare say the hon. John Morrison was in this House. There is less reason for confusion now, since he would not appear on the ballot paper because we have wiped out the non-resident qualification and, as far as I know, he is domiciled in Islay.
The result of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington would be to insert a personal and political description, for the best reasons in the world to him, to highlight the single Liberal he has found in Rutherglen, after the fourth candidate's name on the specimen ballot paper. This might suggest, contrary to the provisions of the Bill as amended, that the inclusion of a description in a


ballot paper was obligatory, and convey a misleading impression.
These are our only reasons for resisting the Amendment. We had no politics in mind. If anyone is concerned about the designations of parties in Scottish local elections, I can assure him that we could have picked some real honeys.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry to interrupt again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is not in Committee.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I only wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in England and Wales there are five names on the ballot paper and these are named as being Labour, Conservative, Independent, Liberal and National Independent Teenage Party. Therefore, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to put down an Amendment to delete one of those: names in case people are misled into thinking that there must be a label in England and Wales?

Mr. Ross: I do not think so. I think it is perfectly clear. Being rather traditionalist and generally right about these matters in Scotland we stick to the specimen ballot paper with the same four names that we have had for nearly 20 years in the Representation of the People Act. For the guidance of those concerned, we have introduced possibilities about the change that we have now made. The hon. Member for Orpington may confuse Orpington as much as he likes, but leave the local government forms for local government elections in Scotland to be guided from Scotland rather than from Orpington.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have not interrupted the right hon. Gentleman because I was waiting to hear his explanation of the use of these sample descriptions for Scottish local government elections. His argument that because at the moment a Liberal is not, for example, a member of the Council of Rutherglen—and, for all I know, has not stood in the recent local elections—is nonsense. It is not a question whether there is a Liberal standing now or in recent history. One could stand in future. The point is that Conservatives and Liberals stand in local government elec-

tions in Scotland. This is the argument—

Mr. Mervyn Rees: No.

Mr. Campbell: The Home Secretary may not have been present when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Callaghan: I was here.

Mr. Campbell: If so, the right hon Gentleman was not listening. The Secretary of State for Scotland, perhaps in error, said to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) who asked for a reason why a Liberal was not given in a particular sample, that it was because there was not a Liberal standing in that area for the council. That is the point I understood the right hon. Gentleman to have made. That is certainly what we understood him to say. I wish to make it clear because some hon. Members on both sides representing England and Wales may not have realised from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that both the Conservative and Liberal Parties stand in local elections in Scotland, but not in all areas. There are areas where Conservatives are not at present standing but where Progressives and parties with other names stand. For the same reason, I can understand that there are probably areas where the Liberal Party does not stand, but Liberal candidates do stand in various parts of Scotland. Therefore, it is misleading to mention only one of the major parties in Scotland, the Labour Party. The point has been made that the sample for England and Wales contains the names of the three major parties and others, but in Scotland only the Labour Party is mentioned. If the Secretary of State says that he is keeping the same names as were originally in the sample form, there is no need to attach the same parties to the names. He could bring in the major parties to make it clear that they are not opting out of local elections in Scotland.

Mr. Callaghan: Whom does the hon. Gentleman think this form might mislead and for whom does he think it is intended? Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that this form, which is basically the property of the returning officer to guide him in drawing up the ballot paper, will mislead the returning officer by all this faddle diddle the hon. Member for Orpington has raised this afternoon?

Mr. Campbell: No. But the answer which the Secretary of State for Scotland gave to the hon. Member for Orpington was thoroughly misleading. Unfortunately, what the right hon. Gentleman says is often reported in the Scottish Press and sometimes in the Press elsewhere, and everything he said today could mislead those who follow the debate on the Amendment moved by the Government.

Mr. Callaghan: That is absolute rubbish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Report stage is a little more formal than Committee.

Mr. Campbell: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will commend the fact that I did not interrupt the Secretary of State, but listened to everything he had to say before replying. I have made it clear that the right hon. Gentleman's intervention was thoroughly misleading. I hope that, in another place, the Government will seek to make this sample form a proper sample.

Dr. Winstanley: I apologise for detaining the House. I would not have done so had the right hon. Gentleman given us any kind of answer to the serious and sensible point put by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
The purpose of these specimen lists of candidates, together with descriptions, is clear to all. It is to inform people about what is and what is not possible. The Home Secretary says that it is generally to inform the returning officer, but he will know that returning officers from time to time issue copies to show what is possible and what will later appear. I have seen such copies. The right hon. Gentleman knows that they exist. The purpose of the specimen lists is for information. In England and Wales there is a list of parties: Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Independent and National Independent Teenage Party. It may be true, as the right hon. Gentleman argued, that there should have been a candidate with no party to show that it is not necessary to have a description. But in the Scottish list, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has not explained, he has picked one real party, the Labour

Party, and put that name in and two nonsense names. Why has the right hon. Gentleman done that? He could have followed the other sample and done something sensible which would have given the correct information, which is what we all want.

Mr. Ross: I am surprised—

Mr. Hogg: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Ross: With the leave of the House. I am surprised at the attitude of the Liberals and, indeed, of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). What we are doing is for the guidance of returning officers and those concerned with the drawing up of ballot papers for local elections in Scotland. A change arises because at the moment the only thing that appears on the ballot paper is the name and address of any candidate. We now say that it is open to a candidate to put in a description of himself and also of his party. Therefore, we seek to provide specimens of the various possibilities that arise from that change for the guidance of returning officers. I am surprised that hon. Members have tried to read party malice into this. We could have chosen any names that we liked. If we were to cover all the possible combinations of names and descriptions the specimen form would have been an impossible length. I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to be reasonable. We did not select "Conservative" or "Liberal" when we mentioned them in paragraph 34 because this would be of great advantage to one or other. We had no ulterior motives. It is unfair to suggest that I was seeking to misguide people. It is possible to have various combinations. We have given specimens for the guidance of returning officers. If we had accepted the Amendment it would have been of less real guidance to returning officers and others concerned.
With this explanation I hope that the House will accept the Government's Amendment and reject the Amendment thereto.

Mr. Sharples: I intervene only briefly because I do not think the House has had a satisfactory explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment raises


a serious point. The Home Secretary's name appears first to the Amendment, and one therefore assumes that he has a certain responsibility for it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is open to suggestions when these are seriously made. I ask him to examine the matter himself, perhaps when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that a lot of nonsense has been talked. I cannot give any undertaking of the sort. I think that when the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) moved the Amendment he did so in the spirit of Christmas festivities, and he is perhaps rather surprised at the storm clouds which have gathered.
I understood that in Scotland many Conservatives stood as Progressives. They describe themselves as Progressives, and that word will appear in the column, just as will the word Labour. I do not think the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) had any idea what he was talking about. As for the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), he is making a great song and dance about a form which is issued for the guidance of returning officers. I promise him that a returning officer in Scotland can detect a Liberal when he sees one, however rarely that may be. I do not think that there will be any difficulty about ensuring that the name Liberal appears on the ballot paper. If the hon. Gentleman takes himself a little less seriously now and again, he will get even more done than he does by his great pertinacity.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap of thinking that Conservatives and Progressives are exactly the same thing. Conservatives stand as Conservatives in some parts of Scotland, and the Progressive Party also stands, with its own description, as Progressives.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a second speech.

Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to have it from the hon. Gentleman, who is such an authority on Scottish matters, that Conservatives cannot be Progressives, or that they are not Progressives. If they are the same, I do not see the point of his interjection. I am ready to accept

that Progressives and Conservatives are not the same thing. If the hon. Gentleman feels that an injustice is being done to his party by describing it as Progressive, I accept that, too. I am replying in the same spirit as the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke to the new Clause. That is to say, he, like me, thinks that much ado is being made about precious little.

Mr. James Dempsey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House wants to come to a decision.

Mr. Dempsey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Very well. Mr. Dempsey.

Mr. Dempsey: It is our experience in Lanarkshire that when the Progressive Party meets it meets as the Progressive Party, and then changes it chairman and meets as the Conservative Party.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 43, in page 41, line 29, at end insert:
(2) In Schedule 4, in paragraph 5 (3) (matters about which, in connection with absent voting, regulations may prescribe the required, sufficient or conclusive evidence) after the words 'of his being subject to any physical incapacity and as to its probable duration' there shall be inserted the words 'or of his being bound to any religious observance and of the nature and times of the observance'.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 42, line 6, at beginning insert:

9 &amp; 10 Geo. 6. c. 3.
The Coatbridge and Springburn Elections (Validation) Act 1945.
The whole Act.


9 &amp; 10 Geo. 6. c. 43.
The Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Act 1946.
The whole Act.


12, 13 &amp; 14 Geo. 6. c. 46.
The House of Commons (Indemnification of Certain Members) Act i 1949.
The whole Act.

Mr. Speaker: With that Amendment we can take Amendment No. 48.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The purpose of these Amendments is to include in


Schedule 4 certain indemnity Acts which are spent. The Law Commission has drawn attention to the fact that these Acts can now be repealed, and it is proposed to include them in the "dead wood" Schedule to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 42, line 11, column 3, at end insert 'Section 102'.
The purpose of the Amendment is to repeal Section 102 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. That Section made unlawful the expenditure of certain moneys in payment of any expenses incurred in a Parliamentary election. This is now dealt with in another part of the Bill. It is a nineteenth century provision, which to all intents and purposes has in practice been overtaken and superceded by Section 63 of the 1949 Act. The opportunity could have been taken to repeal this provision in the 1948 Act, but it was overlooked. It was not possible to deal with it in 1949, because that was a consolidating Measure. The time has come to deal with it in this way.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 42, line 13, column 3, at end insert 'Section 145 (4) from the words "The reference" onwards'.

Mr. Speaker: With that Amendment we can take Amendment No. 47.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: These two Amendments remove words from both Section 145 (4) and Section 152 (6) of the Representation of the People Act 1949. Perhaps to save time I can say that this refers to rules made before the passing of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883. There are no longer any such rules as are excluded by the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 47, in page 42, line 16, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 152 (6) from the words "The reference" onwards'.

No. 48, in page 42, line 34, at end insert:



2 &amp; 3 Eliz. 2. c. 29.
The Niall Macpherson Indemnity Act 1954.
The whole Act.


4 &amp; 5 Eliz. 2. c. 10.
The Validation of Elections Act 1955.
The whole Act.


4 &amp; 5 Eliz. 2. c. 12.
The Validation of Elections (No. 2) Act 1955.
The whole Act.


4 &amp; 5 Eliz. 2. c. 13.
The Validation of Elections (No. 3) Act 1955.
The whole Act.


4 &amp; 5 Eliz. 2. c. 27.
The Charles Beattie Indemnity Act 1956.
The whole Act.

No. 49, in page 44, line 28, column 3, at end insert 'Section 97'.

No. 50, in page 44, line 41, column 3, leave out '(3) and'.

No. 55, in page 45, line 12, at end insert:


4 &amp; 5 Eliz. 2. c. 60.
The Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956.
Section 35.

—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Schedule 5

INSERTIONS AUTHORISED IN REPRESENTA- TION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 IN REVISED EDITION OF STATUTES

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 46, line 48, column 1 leave out 'and (2)'.

No. 52, in page 46, line 50, column 2, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

No. 53, in page 47, leave out lines 10 to 14.

No. 54, in page 47, leave out line 33.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: During our consideration of the Bill we have been looking at two major proposals. First, the introduction of the vote at 18, an issue which cut across all parties, and which, on balance, the House thought was a good idea to introduce. I think that this shows a great deal of sense on the part of the House, recognising as it does the maturity and intelligence of young people today.
One issue has created more smoke than light, and in respect of it there have been so many squeals from the party opposite, and from local Tory representatives in my area that it would be wrong not to spell out to my constituents the importance of the abolition of the non-residential franchise in local government elections in our area. The Bill makes the end of a long crusade in the history of this party, associated with the campaign for one man, one vote. Now this has been universally established, by the passage of the Bill, in all elections. We went a long way to achieving it with the abolition of the university vote in 1949 and with the Bill we have come the whole way.
In Hull, there are 194,160 local government electors, of whom 1,161 are identified on the electoral register as nonresidents—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I understood that on the Third Reading of a Bill one was limited to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. I will call the hon. Member to order immediately I think he is out of order.

Mr. McNamara: Although this might seem to be an insignificant number—only 0·6 per cent. of the electorate—the way it works shows a tremendous weighing of electoral advantage for a particular party in a particular ward in my area. The majority of these people claim their vote in one ward, Myton Ward. I have here a copy of the electoral register of local government electors. In one street in my area, Albion Street, 31 out of 35 local government voters are non-residential—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me which part of the Bill he is talking about.

Mr. McNamara: I am talking about Clause 15, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and commending it to the House and to my constituents.
A register which was in operation until February, 1968, for a whole voting area shows that only 63 out of 243 electors on the register were residential. Nine

out of 15 in one street, ten out of 11 in another, in that street of streets in Hull, Land of Green Ginger, 12 out of 18, in Parliament Street, a great name, 52 out of 56 are non-residential voters.
The way that the votes are concentrated in one area creates chaos. It means that the people of Hull who live in the area cannot have the representation that they might want. A considerable number of those who are registered as nonresidential voters claim a postal vote. I should like to give some examples to show why my constituents should welcome the Bill.
In Myton Ward, District 4, there is a place known as Seaton Buildings, Jameson Street. There are 11 nonresidential voters, nine of whom are registered as postal voters with an address in Liverpool. At Festival House, Jameson Street, there are seven non-residential voters, three of whom have postal votes at an address in London, E.C.3, and two have postal votes at addresses in Cardiff. So I could go on, quoting case after case of people with no interest in the city, living in Liverpool, London, Cardiff and elsewhere and claiming the right to vote. One cannot accept this.
I should like to look at the 1968 Election results in Myton Ward. The figure was: Johnson, Labour, 1,523; Williamson, Conservative, 1,748. This was a Conservative majority of 225 in a ward where there were 541 registered nonresidential voters—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I should be interested to know where in the Bill is anything detailing the streets of Hull and the content of the voting strength there and what relevance therefore the hon. Member's speech has to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is relating his remarks to Clause 15, and at the moment he is in order.

Mr. McNamara: I appreciate why the hon. Member does not want the answer to the case that his Party have been trying to make underlined from this side of the House.
What I have been saying shows the evils of plural voting in my constituency. One argument of the party opposite to support their idea is the claim that people who are paying rates should have their


interests protected by being allowed the vote. But let us consider a few examples. At this same Seaton Buildings in Jameson Street, the rateable value is £1,300 and there are 11 votes there. At 28 Albion Street, which has a rateable value of £318. there are five votes. At 18 Albian Street, which has a rateable value of £258, there are five votes, but in the same area, at the Co-op in Jameson Street—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: How long ago was this?

Mr. McNamara: This year.
—which has a rateable value of £59,138, there are no votes. At the premises of Edwin Davies of Bond Street, a large multiple firm in the area, which has a rateable value of £7,472, there are no votes. The Party opposite are advocating the continuation of privilege, which we on this side could not possibly accept.
The balance on the council in Hull shows that 14 Tories and 2 Labour members, 16 out of 84, or 19 per cent. of the council, will be affected by this. It is totally unacceptable that 19 per cent. or one-fifth of the council should come from 0·6 per cent. of the electorate, who do not even live in the constituency. The Tories have 36 members on the county council of whom 14, or just over one third, are non-residents. I find it shocking that the Tory party in Hull has to look outside the city boundaries for candidates and that, for that reason, they are opposing Clause 15.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to what will happen once the Bill is passed and what the words in the Bill state, and not what might have happened under the old legislation.

Mr. McNamara: When the Bill and Clause 15 come into effect, the Tories in my city will be able to ensure that they are represented by Tory ratepayers resident in the city. This will give them a wonderful opportunity to change the leadership of their party and perhaps become for the first time an effective opposition, which is something we would also like in this Chamber.
Also, I should like to put a point to my hon. Friend, when a person has put forward the qualification in the past that he has

owned freehold or leasehold land and we have made a search of the local land registry, we have found no reference to it. It has in the past been very difficult to challenge this, because of the expenses of an electoral court. What I want to know is to what extent a person will be able to challenge the form of consent of candidature to make sure that it does not contain merely an accommodation address. Otherwise, the general effect of this provision could well be lost.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), arguing against Clause 15, urged that the person who was a ratepayer should be able to be represented. He drew an analogy with national politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howies) dealt with that argument succinctly. The point is simple: when choosing a candidate for national politics, we are choosing a British subject to decide the affairs of the country, but in local politics we are choosing a local resident who is deciding the affairs of the locality.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the whole House heard the end of that speech with considerable relief, and I am sure that in time the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will regret that he has come to the aid of a thoroughly disreputable position by trying to reopen a debate which was thoroughly thrashed out in earlier stages of the Bill.
There can be no more question of voting against the Bill on Third Reading than there was of voting against the Bill on Second Reading. It contains a number of provisions which are either laudable or at any rate harmless and a number of provisions which are controversial—one of them highly disreputable, by which I refer to Clause 15, which we shall reverse as soon as we get into office, which will be at the earliest possible moment the Government cease to cling to office.
I do not want to renew the debate which has taken place over a wide range of other provisions. We think that on balance a number of the provisions in the Bill are justifiable. I believe that in the end the country will regret the decision of the House about votes at 18, and I am not the only Member of any party who


takes that view. A number of other provisions, such as that on Party labels, need reconsideration. I hope that the Government will not close their minds to the reconsideration which even today has been shown to be necessary on Clause 12, and I hope that some of the other criticisms which we have made will be repaired., if possible by the instance of the Government by amendment in another place.
But in the meantime, before the Home Secretary rises, I would, with the greatest possible malice politically, but the greatest possible good will personally, wish him a happy Christmas.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: We come to the end of the Bill, which has taken considerable time in passing through the House—and it is none the worse for that; indeed, it is the better for that. The deliberations have taken seven full days of Parliamentary time, including four days in Committee on the Floor of the House, and I modestly suggest that it has been time well spent.
I should like to express my thanks to the House for the manner in which, in general, the subjects have been approached. I know that I shall be forgiven for expressing my special thanks to my Under-Secretary of State, who came to this Bill completely fresh from his labours in the Ministry of Defence. It was a very useful occasion for him to renew a nodding acquaintance with democracy by leaving defence and coming to our consideration of the Bill. He has shown that he has forgotten none of his initial cunning.
I thank the Opposition—both the official Opposition and the Liberal Party spokesmen—for the way in which they have helped in the consideration of the Bill. They have put forward their views, where they differed from ours, with great force and vigour. Nevertheless, our debates have been characterised by good temper. It would have been difficult for them to have been characterised by anything else with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) leading the Opposition.
There has been a genuine readiness, I hope, to consider other points of view, and a genuine desire to improve our electoral machinery where improvement

is needed and to increase participation, if I may use the vogue word, in the processes of selection which are necessary for a representative democracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked me about candidates at local government elections who had an accommodation address. In some of the circumstances which he described—if I understood his illustration exactly—they would be breaking the law. It is the statutory duty of the householder to give to the electoral registration officer the names of those resident at the address on the qualifying date, and only those names, and there is a penalty of £20 for returning false information. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a provision for hearing objections. If a person contesting an election is in the register as a resident, that is conclusive as to his qualifications under that head to be a candidate. But this is a matter which will need to be considered very carefully as we have changed the law.
We have improved the bill by the decision, reached by the House after mature consideration, on party labels. I will not rehearse all the arguments again. There was a general desire that there should be party labels, although some hon. Members did not quite agree. We have reached, I believe, the best possible compromise by allowing persons to show their colours if they wish to do so, but only if they wish to do so.
We also dealt with wife-voters. We got rid of provisions, which were sensible enough when first introduced but which had ceased to make sense and had become a stumbling-block, without extending the field of absent voting. We have made it easier for merchant seamen to get on the register and possible for election agents to have their offices wherever, within reason, it suits their convenience, and we have removed broadcasting from the thorny field of election expenses. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) was particularly interested in the question of wives voting. I would inform her that under Clause 5 (1) a wife who is abroad with her husband or at sea with him if he is a seaman would be entitled to vote by proxy. I hope that that meets the point which she made.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone uttered some characteristic words about the non-resident franchise and the property qualification. I note that the Conservative Party intend to reverse this provision if and when they win an election. I note that they intend to return to the system of plural voting. I note that that pledge has been given. I recall that a similar pledge was given in the Parliament of 1945–50 about university representation, and I dare say that this pledge will have exactly the same fate in the annals of Conservative Party history as the pledge concerning university representation and that we shall never hear more about it after today. In any case, whether we do or not, I doubt whether they will be in a position for a very long time to carry out that pledge. The plain truth is that for local government the field of selection should be the local area. For Parliament it should be the United Kingdom. That seems to me a clear and definite distinction which should be made.
There will continue to be differences of view about votes at 18, across the parties and between the parties, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly said. We all have different views on this subject. I do not wish again to rehearse the arguments. Every one of us is conscious that we have made a substantial extension, and I hope that we have made the right decision. I believe that we have and I trust that time will show that we have.
In conclusion, I thank the House for the manner in which this Bill has been considered. I express the thanks of the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, as we have been jointly in charge of the Bill, for the consideration which has been given and for the temper and tone of the debates.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I am a little puzzled at the course of the debate. When you called the Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), quick off the mark, gave us his most interesting analysis of the facts of the existing electoral arrangements in the local elections in his constituency. The right hon. and learned Member for

St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), unable to contain himself any longer, then sprang to the Box and began to make concluding observations about the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary naturally followed the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Box. But I hope that that does not indicate that we have necessarily finished with the Bill if hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to say something about Third Reading.
I should, perhaps, apologise for my intervention at this time, but one of my misfortunes in being Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party is that I am required to be on other duties at material times when Bills are under discussion in the House. Therefore, I was not able to take part in the debate on Second Reading and I was not able to speak on several Clauses dealt with in Committee. That, I hope, will be accepted as my apologetic reason for offering a comment or two now.
I think the most important change in the Bill is the granting of votes at the age of 18. Many of us—I can speak for some—who were on Mr. Speaker's Conference were in obvious difficulties when this question came before the House with a Government recommendation to support the Clause to reduce the voting age to 18. Those of us on Mr. Speaker's Conference did what our instructions required us to do—to arrive if possible at agreed solutions on various matters relating to Parliamentary elections. Mr. Speaker, in his final report to the Prime Minister, paid tribute to the co-operative spirit in which the members of the Conference approached their task which he said was a great help in enabling agreement to be reached on a substantial number of matters which were before us.
I was party to the majority view on Mr. Speaker's Conference on votes at 18. When it came before the House any member of Mr. Speaker's Conference had to decide whether to uphold the arrangement or agreement to which he was party at the Conference or to obey a Government Whip to vote in a different sense. I thought there was nothing more shameful in my upholding the agreement reached at Mr. Speaker's Conference when the matter came on the Floor of the House than in the Government upholding the arrangement they had come to with


the Opposition on reform of the House of Lords.
These things are matters of discussion and as far as possible agreement between the parties on constitutional questions. The whole point of appointing Mr. Speaker's Conference was to try to reach the maximum of agreement on constitutional questions so as to avoid unnecessary party strife on these matters on the Floor of the House. That I offer by way of explanation of what I did because when I read in the newspapers that I had voted against the Government, or defied the Whips I felt a little hurt. The Whips defied me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's observations may be interesting, but he must relate his remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill and I do not think that what he has said so far had a great deal to do with that.

Mr. Houghton: I was relating my observations to Clause 1, which deals with voting at the age of 18. I was explaining how things happened concerning me when that Clause was before the House in Committee. I shall leave that now for I think I have explained myself enough. The important point now to which the House has to have regard is how we are to prepare young people for their new responsibilities.
I was much impressed by an observation made by the hon. Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) in the discussion in Committee when she reminded us that there would be people aged 13 at the beginning of a parliament who may be qualified to vote at the end of that Parliament, in five years. I doubt whether our educational system at the moment gives adequate preparation in these matters to enable people to approach their new responsibilities with a feeling of understanding and confidence.
So I hope that the Government will give some attention to the educational curricula. I know how difficult these problems are in schools, especially when they border on party controversy, but we have now decided to give the vote to young people who may be called upon to vote before they have left school and in many cases before they have taken a cool look at the world outside and shared in the experiences and responsibilities of adult

life. This is very important. It is the main point that I rose to make.
There are other parts of the Bill I do not particularly like, but the House has decided on them and we must accept them and hope that they will work out all right. In scattered constituencies and rural areas there will be an additional trial for those engaged in elections to have the polling stations open until 10 o'clock at night. That again is something on which opinions differ. We shall have to see how it goes, but I very much fear that we shall have polling stations open for the final hour with few, if any, electors coming into many of them to register their votes. My experience in the last election was that polling stations were almost deserted by half-past eight. It may be that they will be deserted for the extended period for which they are open. We shall have to see. I do not think it necessarily helps anyone to go on extending the hours during which people may discharge their civic responsibilities, imposing unnecessary burdens on others without increasing the number of those who register their votes.
This is a Bill which is good in parts. I am hurt by some of the experience which members of Mr. Speaker's Conference had, but we will bear it as best we can.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I seek the indulgence of the House to participate in this fourth discussion of the Bill. I join with the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in thinking that it was an extraordinary situation that when at least one back-bench Member rose you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, called the Front Bench speaker on the Opposition side, which virtually meant that the debate was closed when the Home Secretary followed him. I am in some difficulty because I was about to speak. I wanted to ask a question to which I thought I might get an answer from the Home Secretary, but he has now finished his speech. I hope that by leave of the House he will reply to what I ask.
This concerns the question of votes at 18. The House has passed this, but Parliament as a whole has not passed it for it still has to go to another place. I was not in favour of this change, but I realise that the majority of the House agreed to it. I have always thought that


20 would have been a better age limit. An interesting thing has occurred since we passed that Clause of the Bill. Another place has thrown out a suggestion that young people of 18 should be allowed to marry without permission of their parents. The Lords inisted, I understand, that 20 should remain the age.
I ask the Home Secretary whether this would make any difference to the view of the Government on votes at 18. There might be a position in which people could not vote but could marry at age 18. That would be anomalous. On the other hand, if what has been done in the Lords holds good, young people will have to ask their parents' permission to marry at 18, although they will have a vote, they will be able to participate in the election of a government, and they will be able to exercise their full democratic rights. In view of what has happened in the Lords, the Home Secretary should think again. If the decision of the Lords stands, the Government should reconsider their attitude to votes at 18.

Mr. Callaghan: The Government would certainly not think it proper that the House of Lords should determine the age at which people should vote or, indeed, the conditions under which they should vote.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: The question just asked by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) causes me to intervene for a few minutes. I had thought that the Bill could be accorded a Third Reading without my blessing. I took up the time of the Committee and of the House during earlier stages of the Bill. A report of what happened in the Lords yesterday started me thinking. I think that at least one back-bencher from this side should make some comment on the issue which is raised.
As the House knows, I am a supporter of the Bill. I am glad that it has reached its final stage in this House. I think that it is a good Bill and that, in its major reforms, it will contribute to the development of democracy. I think that it is a good Bill, too, because it pioneers the development of democratic representation; and there is no Parlia-

ment better suited to be a pioneer in this field than the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Surely the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would not advance the wholly anti-democratic theory that, even though the full Parliamentary process in regard to the Bill embodying the important proposals of the Latey Committee has not been gone through, the fact that a certain proposition has been carried on an Amendment in the Lords should cause the House of Commons to abandon legislation which will tonight gets its Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman talked about one House, or Parliament, passing a Bill finally.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I do not accept the proposition which the hon. Gentleman seems to be advancing, and which was slightly hinted at by the Home Secretary, that the Lords have no right to participate in any legislation. The Lords have a right to take a view. When that view comes to this House, it is right that we should reconsider the matter in the light of what the Lords have done.

Mr. Mendelson: Neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor I have suggested that the Lords have no right to take part in the legislative process. The hon. Gentleman should not at this late stage in the debate misinterpret what has been said. The Lords have carried a proposition on an Amendment. This is one stage in the progress of legislation. In due course, that proposition will be reported to this House. It will be for the Commons to make its decision. I am confident that it will overturn the proposition carried narrowly in the Lords and will accept the recommendation.
I attach the greatest possible importance to the propositions in the Report of the Latey Committee. I have always believed that the reforms there proposed have a bearing on this Bill. These responsibilities go together. I am certain that they will be passed together.
It ought not to go out from the House that in this final stage of the debate there has been any change of opinion among the majority of the House. There is a clear and big majority in favour of the Bill. It has been debated at great length through its various stages. It brings the law up to date in many important respects on which all parties and people


of no party think alike. For many years many of these proposals have been debated in political circles outside the House. The work which has been done on these reforms, both in Mr. Speaker's Conference and in Parliament, is greatly appreciated.
I believe that the most important among them is the encouragement which there will be to members of the younger generation—not, as has been so often, just boys and girls of 18. Only one section of the new electorate will be 18. Others will be 19, 20 and 21. This continuous harping on only one section of the electorate is an implied misrepresentation of this major reform.
It will mean that, instead of merely saying, "You are not taking part in the political democratic process because you are young", we shall say to these young people, "There is a way in which you can fully participate. Although a demonstration may have its place, there is no reason why you should not be fully integrated in the political decision-making of your community". This is the most important of all the decisions in this major reform. I am glad that the House is about to give the Bill a Third Reading.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: May I leave one thought in the Secretary of State's mind on the question of keeping polling booths open till 10 p.m. I ask him to picture the count. I am sure that he can picture many counts. I ask him to visualise dozens of people waiting for the ballot boxes to arrive at 10.30 a.m. and with nothing to do until then.
Will he consider allowing ballot boxes to be sent in at 9 p.m., with a supplementary ballot box, as it were, coming in at 10 p.m.? Then those who are specially employed to count would have something to do from 9 p.m. onwards. This would have the further advantage of showing the right hon. Gentleman the number of voters who exercised their right to vote in the extra hour. If he finds after a year or two that a very small proportion of the electorate utilises the extra hour, he might consider reverting to 9 p.m.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: It is said that a man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still.

I can only say again, on the occasion of the Third Reading debate, that I regard the giving of the vote at 18 years of age as a thoroughly retrograde step. For the first time in the history of our Constitution, something has been given away which was not asked for. I am conscious of the value of the vote, and I am conscious of the whole history of the franchise and the struggle to develop it. But the franchise is not something to be given simply as a gambit between the parties concerned about public opinion polls, and I am sure that some element of that kind entered into consideration here. I do not think that it is a good move at all.
Our rules regarding what is in order in a Third Reading debate have been strained this evening, particularly during the last speech, so I hope that I may, in the same spirit, be allowed to make one or two observations. Mr. Speaker's Conference did not ask that the line should stop at 21 years of age. It spoke about votes at 20, which, with the five months, meant 17 months in all, which would have taken care of the "Y" voters about whom we have heard. The opinion which it expressed went right across the Conference.
I assure my right hon. Friend that it was not necessary for me to be a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference to come to the opinion which I have. I am pleading in aid nothing of that sort now. I am only urging what I believe to be right. None of the arguments which I have heard has altered my view, and I can only hope that things will turn out rather better than I fear. Perhaps I may add that, when I have spoken to the West Leeds Labour Party general management committee, one of the most mature political organisations in Britain, it supported me unanimously.
In addition to unwanted votes, an unwanted extension of the franchise we have unwanted hours of polling provided for under the Bill. I have tested this also. I have pointed out already that we cannot get much more than a 90 per cent. vote in some places, on an 85 per cent. register as it usually is. I do not know for whose benefit this change is being made. Some of my colleagues tell me that in more backward constituencies than mine the change is needed. I can only repeat that in West


Leeds we do not need it, and it is resented. I put it as strongly as that.
Among all the unnecessary changes made by the Bill, a necessary advance, that is, provision for two registers a year, is not to be found. It would have cost £3 million. In answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) the other day, the Treasury—or it may have been the Home Office—said that there had been no proper estimate of what all the other changes would cost, the extra polling hours, the extra cost of taking on board 3 million 4 million voters. I say nothing about extra necessary cost in education which will be necessary if people are to exercise the franchise. No costing of that kind has been done, yet all political parties are united in believing that, if one thing is needed more than anything else, it is two registers a year so that people may be able to vote effectively. That advance was cut out by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1949. It is a poor do that we cannot do better in 1968.
In addition, we shall have unwanted party labels at Parliamentary elections. Nobody has proved the case. No one has shown that they are needed, though they are needed at local government elections. It still seems to me that the Opposition put up the best case when they said that we could have done it without fuss by allowing the parties to exhibit special posters in polling booths.
Now, another matter. I did not drag it up, but the Home Secretary did when he rather sneeringly rejected any attempt to deal with betting on the voting results and the public opinion polls. I can only say that I remain unrepentant. If I did not argue the case fully in debate, that was because it never appeared in the Bill. But there is a case to be made. It ought not to be brushed aside. Above all people, my right hon. Friend is a Home Secretary who should understand the evils of gambling and the repercussions of the Butler Act, which went far wider and brought in far more evil than we ever understood at the time. I do not consider that our public processes should be at the mercy of the betters and the punters.
The Home Secretary made something of the point that he had given a great

deal of what Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended. So he should. In the main, however, he has just given to Mr. Speaker's Conference what I call the bread and cheese items in our Report, the "Yes-No" items, the things that did not matter an awful lot. He has given us none of the big decisions.
Many people have taken as much interest in this matter as I have, but I claim that no one has taken more. This is one of the causes to which I have been committed. I have been to the political agents and I have spoken to my constituents. I have spoken to all the people who will be concerned. I can claim that no one has given these questions deeper consideration.
I am profoundly dissatisfied with this Bill, and I greatly regret that it has come from a Labour Government in our great democracy. It is a thing largely of rags and tatters. One or two improvements will come out of it, but the sum total does not take us far along the road in the great historical process of the emancipation of our people and the development of the Parliamentary system.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

INVERURIE LOCOMOTIVE WORKS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

8.35 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: By one of the accidents of procedure in the House we have much more than the half hour I expected for the debate in which I intend in just 15 minutes to make an unanswerable case for the retention of the Inverurie Locomotive Works as an industrial unit. I had intended to leave the Minister 15 minutes to reply, but it looks as though he will have well over an hour, although I understand that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I have the greatest respect for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and I am also grateful that the Minister of State is present, so I mean


nothing personal when I say that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be here to reply. Is he afraid, or does not he regard this as a matter of sufficient importance to merit his personal attention?
I have already given the Ministry of Transport and the Board of Trade full facts and figures on the capabilities of the Inverurie Locomotive Works, which, somewhat surprisingly, they had not had from the Board of British Railways. I shall stress only a few important facts now.
The works employs about 580 men, one in four of the insured population of the Royal Burgh of Inverurie. Of those men, 224 are skilled and 204 are semi-skilled. There are 100 salaried staff, and the rest are unskilled, including 40 apprentices There are slight variations from month to month, so those figures may be marginally out of date. When it is appreciated that the population of Inverurie is only 5,267, it may be seen that it is a real railway town. The only other manufacturing is a small paper mill, and without the locomotive works Inverurie would be a town without a heart, unless there were a successful transplant from somewhere else.
At present, the carriage shop is working at full capacity, with occasional pockets of overtime. The wagon shop is in the same position. Although there is a lack of locomotives for repair—the works went over to diesel some time ago—steel wagons are being repaired in the loco shop, by amicable agreement between management and staff. The blacksmith's shop, too, is very busy and working overtime. However, it has been the policy of headquarters management not to recruit men to replace natural wastage and retirement. Consequently, there is currently a certain imbalance of staff. Nevertheless, the quality of the work is probably higher than in any other of the 14 British Rail workshops in the United Kingdom.
New equipment was installed in 1964. The works has an unsurpassed record of good labour relations. If there has ever been a stoppage, I do not know when it was. There is a rapid throughput of all types of work, and a very broad, adaptable and flexible capability. There are good training facilities for apprentices in a wide variety of trades. Work study is in effective use throughout the whole factory and as a consequence all

the costs are very low. It is claimed that the labour costs are 11d. per standard hour lower than in any other railway workshop, though I do not know whether that is something to be proud of, because it implies a low wage structure. In addition, the factory is situated only 16 miles from the freightliner terminal at Aberdeen, on the fast line from Aberdeen to Inverness, and only 12 miles from Aberdeen (Dyce) Airport.
In those circumstances, one may well wonder why the Board of British Rail is even considering the closure of this highly efficient and vital unit. The answer, I am told, is rationalisation. It is not the fault of Inverurie; it just happens that there is surplus capacity in the big railway workshops in the smoking southern centres of urban population and industry. Apparently, it costs too much to bring rolling stock up to Inverurie for repair, in spite of our lower costs. In America, Russia or Australia, 500 miles is nothing, but it seems that it is an insurmountable obstacle in this congested little island. For the second or third time, I challenge the British Railways Board to publish the full costs before any final decision is taken. I have been assured twice in the last week by a member of the Board and by a member of the Government that a decision has not been taken yet.
The Inverurie Works claims that, for certain types of work, its costs are less than half those of other works. Surely it must be a very expensive journey north to wipe out that advantage. If some of the works' overheads seem relatively high, it is only because they are not given all the work they can handle. How is it that a certain motor car manufacturer can operate economically at Lin-wood to build car bodies for assembly in Coventry?
What is rationalisation? What is rational? It is highly irrational to allow an efficient major unit of a nationalised industry, employing 580 people and capable of expansion, to close on the very eve of publication of the Gaskin Report—the Report commissioned by the Government on the economy of the North-East of Scotland. It would seem equally irrational to close the works just as the massive Transport Act comes into force, giving such units the right to tender for outside engineering contract


work, but before there is an opportunity for the works to assert that right.
The works is capable of producing any British Railways components at low cost. It can take on virtually anything in engineering—machining, smithy work, cyanide hardening, welding, plate work and general fitting, not to mention carpentry, upholstery and electrical work of all types, including battery charging and repair.
Is it rational to condemn the work force to live and labour in congested, smoke-polluted industrial areas of the South or more rational to encourage the survival of an efficient unit in a place where the amenities are second to none. where there is air and space and one of the finest senior secondary schools in Britain, with an enviable record for preparing students for university and higher education, and where one does not have to be an executive in order to fish, ski or play golf?
I have it from the Lord Provost that the council would welcome expansion in the burgh. It would welcome newcomers from the South of Scotland or elsewhere. Already, as the Minister knows, a £250,000 housing scheme has had to be put under the table because of the black cloud hanging over the locomotive works. It is irrational to build new advance factories on the outskirts of Aberdeen and at the same time even to contemplate the closure of an existing factory which is efficient, adaptable and has a first-class labour force.
Closure of the works would have a devastating effect not only on Inverurie but throughout the North-East of Scotland. There is no other work for the men in the area. The Prime Minister may claim—as he did in a letter—that 26 new projects were approved in the North-East of Scotland in 1967, but where are they? How many people do they employ? None is near Inverurie. The right hon. Gentleman said in his letter that Inverurie is within travel-to-work distance of Aberdeen. He does not know the North-East winter.
In any case, where is the work in Aberdeen for about 450 skilled and semiskilled men in the engineering trade? The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that, if the works close, unless there are jobs immediately available in the

area the men will emigrate south or overseas. That is exporting unemployment. Their homes and children's education will be disrupted. Their houses, if they have them, will be devalued because they will be selling in a buyers' market. An integrated community, the kind of community which is far too rare, will be split in half. The men and their families will inevitably find themselves living in one or other of the great conurbations, which may be all right for some but for others will be a minor and unnecessary tragedy.
If the Minister will give one assurance—that the Government will intervene to prevent any closure unless alternative employment is available in the area for the work force and an alternative function for the factory itself—then he will have gone a long way to restore the confidence and sense of security which have been wrecked by rumour. This rumour started with a newspaper article when I was at the United Nations in New York in November.
I am not alone in making this plea. Tomorrow I shall be presenting a formal Petition on behalf of the North-East of Scotland Development Committee, the City of Aberdeen, the County of Aberdeen, the Royal Burghs of Kintore and Inverurie, the Burgh of Old Medrum and the Presbytery of Garioch. This will be presented in the House tomorrow.
I ask the Minister to make the Government's policy clear. Does he agree that a closure would be in direct contradiction of the Government's development area policy? Does he recall that in the Report presented by the Secretary of State for Scotland in January, 1966—Cmnd. 2864—"The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970—a Plan for Expansion", it was stated in paragraph 65 on page 128:
There is also a notably efficient railway workshop at Inverurie with 600 workers, for which a long-term future is planned by British Railways Board.
Does he, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the British Railways Board intend to stand by that undertaking, or is it just another scrap of paper?
More recently, on 4th October, 1966, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Hughes, told me in a letter that the works would continue for as long as the rail system in the North of Scotland justified


it. Some of us may detect a flavour of ambiguity in that gob-stopper. Let us have more figures from the British Railways Beard.
On the basis of the utilisation of rolling stock, linked with time and distance on the railways in that part of Scotland north of the Forth-Clyde Valley, how does the capacity of the Inverurie Locomotive Works compare with the total maintenance and repair requirements over a given period of, say, one year? In other words, do these works have a capacity exceeding the requirements of the rail system in the North of Scotland? This is a fair question in the light of Lord Hughes' letter to me. Or is Inverurie to go so that voracious mouths may be filled in the South? Cannot something be done to spread British Rail's maintenance work to a number of efficient, decentralised smaller units in preference to concentrating it in a few big workshops where a strike, fire, accident or sabotage could bring the railway system to a grinding halt?
I have a few practical suggestions to make. First, the manager of the works should be committed to keeping the work force and factory intact as an efficient unit, or he should go now and be replaced. Secondly, a senior man should be appointed to go out for engineering contract work, like components, prefabrication for shipyards or the construction industry, containers, vehicle bodies and agricultural machinery. There must be something.
Thirdly, any final decision on the future of the works should be delayed for at least two 3'ears to give an opportunity for the terms of the new Transport Act to operate. The situation is bound to change. Already the works have made considerable success in taking on outside work.
Fourthly, will the Board at least give consideration to my proposal that a policy of decentralisation and expansion of workshops like Inverurie might be more economic in the long run? Land is relatively cheap in Inverurie whereas land for redevelopment in the big cities in the South is extremely costly. Would not the sale of British Rail's property in some of the big cities more than compensate for the cost of expanding some of the smaller and more widely distributed workshops? With the establish-

ment of growth points at Invergordon and elsewhere in the North of Scotland, could not the retention of the Inverurie Locomotive Works be justified?
Either rail traffic to and from the North of Scotland will have to be built up, or the Government will be faced with a colossal programme of road expansion between Inverness, Aberdeen and the South—unless it is the Government's intention to allow the North-East to wither and decay.
Fifth, may I ask the Board of Trade to reconsider carefully the Answer given to me on Monday, 16th December, that it does not consider that the circumstances of West Aberdeenshire justify its designation as a special development area? This is not the view of the Government-appointed North-East of Scotland Development Committee—at least not in the event of the closure of the locomotive works.
Finally, I plead with the Minister not to say in his reply, once again, that a final decision rests with the Board of British Railways. It does not, the final decision is in the hands of the Government, and he knows it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: When I arrived at the House tonight I thought that I would get two minutes to say a very brief word in this debate. I find now that I have the luxury of a fair number of minutes over that limit. I congratulate the hon. Member for Abershire, West (Mr. James Davidson) on getting this Adjournment, on the able case he has put, on behalf of the Royal Burgh of Inverurie, and on the very energetic campaign that he has been conducting on this very important issue in the Northeast of Scotland.
I make no apology for intervening, because everyone connected with the North-East realises what a tremendously homogeneous area it is. If I have one quarrel with what the hon. Member said it was when he threw doubt on the fact that Inverurie was within travelling distance of Aberdeen. About 80 of my constituents who live within the city of Aberdeen commute daily to Inverurie and work in the threatened locomotive works.
I recognise that the Ministry of Transport and my hon. Friend on the Front


Bench take no pleasure in facing up to the kind of dilemma about which we are talking. Closures are never popular, and the decisions to make them are never easy. There is obviously a certain freedom on the back-bench, a certain willingness to ignore the kind of pressures that will be brought to bear upon the Ministers, pressures which really ought not to be ignored. It is important however that the gravity of the decisions which are to be taken on Inverurie should be stressed again.
The hon. Member has given some of the bare statistics, and I support him in what he has said. This is a town of just over 5,000 people. I do not dispute his figure of something like one in four of the insured population being employed in these works. If one considers the effect of the closure, the dispersal of labour, the effect upon the shops, the local traders and so on, then the cumulative effect on the economy of the burgh will be very considerable. It is only 16 miles from Aberdeen, but the whole area is, in employment terms, an isolated one.
The only other major industry is a small paper mill. With the removal of the E.F.T.A. tariffs, the build-up of Scandinavian competition, everyone knows that it would be a super-optimist who would describe the British paper industry as a growing employer of labour, certainly in the next year or two. It is also fair to say that if one did make up one's mind to commute to Aberdeen there would be considerable problems over finding a job.
If one looks superficially at the figures and takes the simple criteria of unemployment one finds that in Aberdeen there is a figure of 1·9 per cent. Anyone who looks at this situation with anything more than a cursory glance realises that this masks the extremely heavy emigration rate.
I would remind the House of what was said in Command 2864, "The Scottish Economy, 1965 to 1970". On page 119 is the statement:
Outside Central Scotland, much the greatest volume of net migration overseas and to England is from the North-East region. Its total net loss—over 7,000 a year, amounted to 25 per cent. of the total from Scotland.
It goes on to say that the main weight of the migration is from the Aberdeen

area. Everyone connected with Aberdeen is familiar with the pattern. The city's population has been stable for many years, but only at the expense of drawing constantly from the surrounding agricultural areas. We have become a staging post on the road to the South. This situation has worried the Scottish Office and Ministers for a long time, and the worry was very frankly expressed in the White Paper.
At a time when we are approaching what we hope will be major decisions about the industrial structure of the North-East of Scotland and the Government's attitude to it, with the publication of the Gaskin Report, it would be extremely worrying if such a major prop of the employment structure in the Inverurie area were removed. At best—and this is putting it at its kindest—it would give an air of uncertainty about the future which would be extremely difficult to defend. We are here dealing with a skilled labour force. If it is dispersed, it will not easily be replaced. In fact, it probably cannot be replaced. I am not saying that this is the be-all and end-all of the argument, but it is something which bears the most serious consideration.
One of my main pleas is that this decision, although obviously the Ministry of Transport will have a major say in it, should be seen, not purely in terms of railway economics, but in the context of regional development. I speak from the Labour benches with pride because I genuinely believe that the Government are committed to the revival and development of the Scottish economy as probably no other Administration has been. This has been a continuing trend under a number of Governments, but it has been intensified over the last few years. There is no doubt that there is a great deal about which we can talk with pride.
The emigration figure this year has decreased to 33,000. That is a dramatic drop compared with previous years. I know from many conversations and exchanges in the House what satisfaction this has given to Ministers. I hope that they will bear that in mind before doing anything to increase, as I fear the closure of this locomotive works would, the emigration rate from the North-East of Scotland. As I say, this decision must not


be taken purely in terms of railway economics. We must consider the possibilities and the difficulties, which must be realistically faced, of bringing alternative employment to the area.
I could weary the House by talking about the 37s. 6d. a week paid to employers as a result of the R.E.P.-S.E.T. complex in development areas. We could talk about building grants, training grants, the 45 per cent. cash investment grants, and so on. We all know about the enormous explosion of Government aid and public expenditure in Scotland. But we also know that the North-East has been one of the difficult static areas of the last few years. This perhaps is not difficult to understand.
At the end of the day, the decision as to where new industrial development will be located must rest with the individual firms and industrialists concerned. I accept that. Given the choice of Central Scotland or North of England competing on level terms with the North-East of Scotland, there has been, for all sorts of often fallacious reasons, a tendency to stay out of the area. There are a number of vacant advance factories in my constituency and scattered round the North-East. I make no great complaint about that, because I recognise that the strategy of advance factories is that they should be ready and waiting should the opportunity to attract industry arise.
But we must have no illusions about the difficulty of closing the locomotive works and expecting easily to fill the gap. If the worst comes to the worst and it is decided that the locomotive works should go, the period of the rundown becomes of great importance. I understand that under various union agreements a period of at least six months must be given, but I should have thought that it would have to be very much longer if it were to be a significant concession. Six months might well be a messy compromise, an unpleasant period of uncertainty and deflation while the labour force was run down, but not long enough to allow other arrangements to be made to attract industry and get it established to take up the slack. So let us please be realistic, if the argument does go, as I hope it will not, against the locomotive works.
I recognise, of course, that from the railway point of view, in terms of logic

of development, this is no doubt neat, and that the Inverurie works should be dispensed with. I recognise that my hon. Friend may well say that between 1962 and 1967 the rundown in railway workshops network in England was about 30 per cent. and in Scotland only 9 per cent. I think we would all accept that with the large modern works at St. Rollox and their capacity, this problem does exist. But I wonder at the social cost of closing works like those of Inverurie.
I should like the Minister's comment on this. Look at the cost in social terms, in terms of disruption, of the social chaos caused to the families concerned. I have had some very recent evidence in my own constituency, although on a smaller scale, of similar circumstances when the repair shops were run down in Aberdeen. One family took a job in Cambridge on the promise or certainly understanding that housing would be available within a year, and now, eighteen months later, there is still no word whatsoever of when council accommodation will be available. There are inevitably enormous tensions on a family in such circumstances, and have been for up to eighteen months or longer.
When we try to quantify all this I wonder how long we can fund the deficit involved in keeping the Inverurie locomotive workshops, considering what it would cost to close them and in the attempt to attract alternative employment.
I do not want to delay the House and I will only repeat that this is a decision of paramount importance to the northeast of Scotland. It comes at an extraordinarily awkward time when the Gaskin Report is on the very verge of publication—and, I imagine, based on the assumption that the Inverurie loco works would be continuing as at least part of the industrial scene in the northeast of Scotland. The decision about these works must have very wide-ranging repercussions for the future of what in industrial terms is a very difficult area. The range of job opportunity has always been very limited there, and the economy has lacked buoyancy for so long, despite the very best efforts of the Government. I hope that very great care will be taken over this decision and that it will not be taken purely and simply on economic arguments of the Railways Board.
I repeat what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West quoted from the Scottish Plan, 1965–70:
There is also a notably efficient railway workshop in Inverurie with 600 workpeople and for which a long-term future is planned by the British Railways Board.
That was written in the basic Government Plan for Scotland, in 1966. I do not know of any great revolution since then in railway planning or railway decision-making which would have caused that forecast to be obliterated or the situation to have abruptly changed. We are constantly told that the railways have saved some 3,000 miles of line originally to have fallen under the Beeching axe. There has been no great cutback in lines which was not known in 1966, and there has not been, so far as I know, an unforeseeable expansion in the speed-up of modernisation which would have justified a complete reversal of what, presumably, was a considered judgment in 1966. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say a word or two about that specific statement which appeared in this document, presumably with the permission—putting it no more strongly—and with the knowledge of the Ministry of Transport.
I hope that the Ministry will think very long and very hard about the implications before a final decision is reached. I cannot help warning my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that if the decision goes against the Inverurie railway works and if they are closed that statement will haunt the Government and their representatives in the north-east of Scotland for a very long time.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: May I express my profound sympathy with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) who, in opening the debate, put forward an extremely able and forceful case. I know how I would feel if such a closure were threatened in my constituency. I imagine that Members of the Government would feel the same about the welfare of their constituents, and I hope for this reason they will consider sympathetically the arguments being put forward tonight.
The closure, if it goes through, will be a tragedy in Inverurie unless an effective alternative is devised in time. I am grate-

ful to the Railways Board that on 12th November this year they opened discussions with the trade unions about the future of these works, thereby giving us a chance to engage ourselves in this debate. It is right that a nationalised industry should do this but, if the debate is to be effective, the industry should go further and make plain to us all the facts.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West spoke of the costs involved, the performance of the works and so on. but there are other matters with which I wish to deal. In my experience, dealing with British Railways has sometimes been like a game of blind man's buff. I would like to know who will do the work now done at Inverurie, and where it will be done. What is the level of employment in the area where the work will be done, and what is its efficiency factor? What are the alternatives for the carrying out of the work at present being done in Inverurie? The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West made it plain that it is a highly efficient work force.
It is far easier to effect a closure than to build a works up again. It is far easier to say that there must be rationalisation, and everybody must be in London or in the Midlands to facilitate administration. That is an administratively straightforward measure if one does not care about the people who are involved. It is far harder, especially in my part of the country, to evolve and build up once again an engineering works employing some 600 people. There is such a firm in my constituency employing 900 people which has been going for 50 years, but it takes much time, work and effort to develop an engineering works on this scale.
I differ from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West on only one point, his pleasure that British Railways would be able to take on other engineering work. I am not sufficiently convinced of the efficiency of nationalised industries to welcome their work force being used in this way, with the advantages they have in competition with other industries, for example in my constituency, thus seriously affecting employment in my constituency. My belief is that the private sector should be more involved in work of this kind.
I hope that the debate tonight will attract publicity which may alert anyone


responding to the Government's call for exports, for example, to the realisation that in Inverurie there is a ready-made factory, a highly efficient work force and an opportunity to get going immediately. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has in his diary a list of people who wish to consult him about the future of these works and how they may help by taking them on and keeping them going. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will involve himself in negotiations all over the country and, if necessary, outside, because Inverurie is an asset of which any industry could be proud.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Tom McMillan: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) for raising this question tonight and also my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). I support them, because the fight is reminiscent of the one I went through in 1963 when given the job by my union of combating the Beeching cuts. We organised Scotland, and at one time we had 7,000 people marching through the streets to take part in a mass demonstration in St. Andrew's Halls. On the platform we had a Shadow Cabinet Minister and two other Members of the Labour Party. The case put up then was that the social consequences of these cuts were such that Scotland would be placed in a terrible position. The answer that we got from Dr. Beeching was that he would send Sir Stewart Mitchell to Scotland to look into the position and find out what the workshops could do, and do well. In fact Inverurie was saved because it was concluded that it could continue to do things well for the railways.
I can understand the concern of hon. Members on this side concerned with this matter, but I cannot understand the concern of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman who led the team on the Transport Bill declared from the Despatch Box that Clause 48 would be repealed whenever they were returned to office. Clause 48 is the key—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to legislation in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. McMillan: The key to keeping Inverurie on is the right to manufacture for export or anywhere in the country. I am sure that the key to the problem is for the Government to recognise that Inverurie must keep manufacturing for the railways until it can take up the slack with work outside. I am sure that Inverurie has a future in British Railways and in the Highlands for those who want to use the capacity in the workshops. If the Government will take cognisance of the attitude taken when the Beeching Report came out about the social consequences in Scotland, I am sure that some favour will be shown in this matter.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: This is a matter which transcends party lines and constituency boundaries, in that it is a matter which affects the whole of the North-East of Scotland, and this has been demonstrated in the able speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), and by other hon. Members. It is an issue for the whole of the North-East of Scotland, because if, in a pretty sparsely populated part of the world, at one stroke one knocks out 600 jobs, the effects are like dropping a stone into a pool of water. The ripples are bound to go out to the circumference of that pool, and other areas such as my constituency will suffer as well. Apart from any other considerations, the question of morale is involved. The country, the workers, and in fact all concerned, are looking to the Government tonight, and in the immediate future, to provide a concrete answer to this problem.
As has been said, the greatest problem which we have to face in the North-East of Scotland is depopulation. If these works are wiped out, the problem will be that much intensified. It is not only a matter of the workers themselves. This is a simple point, but one that is often overlooked. We must remember that the families of the workers are also involved. Not only would we lose 600 men, but their families as well, to the detriment of the whole of the surrounding community. I suggest that at the least there should be mounted a holding operation until the Gaskin Report comes out. The White Paper on the Economy of Scotland singles out Inverurie loco works as one


of great efficiency, and the Government surely must take the opportunity of assessing the position in the light of that Report and the White Paper.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that in a letter to him the Prime Minister had told him that 27 new projects were opened up in the North-East in 1967. I question whether those 27 projects employ anything like 600 men. After all, a project can be a very small one, and employ only one or two workers.
But what is nationalisation all about if it is not to take note of such factors as social ones? Here we have a social issue, and it must be looked at in the wider context of depopulation. If it is uneconomic to retain these works, then there is something to commend their closure, but the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, certainly convinced me, if he did not convince anybody else in the House, that the Inverurie works are an economic entity.
I gather that the works and their workings will be transferred to Glasgow if they are closed. What can be the point of such a move if the present railway network in the North and North-East of Scotland is to be maintained? We are told that we want rationalisation. We are told also that the Glasgow loco works are not working to capacity. I gather that in England the loco works to cope with the whole of the South of England are centred at Eastleigh. I may be wrong, but that is my information. I suggest that the Minister might take cognisance of that. Is it further, for instance, from Deal, Dover or Plymouth to Eastleigh than it is from Perth and Dundee to Inverurie? Surely we must consider the full context, and geography plays a part. Therefore, why not concentrate the repairs in Scotland at Inverurie rather than bolstering the St. Rollox works in Glasgow? They are reputed to be under-employed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that we are discussing the closure of the Inverurie works; he must link his remarks to that.

Mr. Baker: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to retain the Inverurie

works and suggest that, to this end, it would be advantageous to concentrate the repair works there from Glasgow.
Therefore, I suggest that the Government hold their decision—the final sanction when the jobs of 600 men are involved must be theirs—at least until the publication of the Gaskin Report and that they consider it in that light, meanwhile retaining the works in the interests of the North-East, which we all hope and pray will become a very viable area in the near future.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: First of all, I apologise to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) for not being present to hear his speech. He knows my sympathies in this matter.
After what the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) has said, I want to make it clear that there is no pressure in St. Rollox or by the Government to close Inverurie. The decision which is being taken is one which we have had to suffer before in Scotland. A final decision on Inverurie has not yet been taken but will be announced early next year. It is supposed that Inverurie will be closed, but we have gone through this before, because of decisions of the British Railways Board and not those of the Government, although a previous Government gave the then Minister of Transport a remit to emasculate the railways.
I sympathise considerably with the dilemma of the Parliamentary Secretary, because I face the same problem in my constituency vis-à-vis Inverurie. The only other railway works is in my constituency and is working considerably below capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) asked what has happened since the Report was issued. It is easy to understand, as it is to understand why the railway workshops are working under capacity.
The reason is that diesel and electric locomotives are running for much longer. The steam locomotives which used to be repaired at Inverurie and St. Rollox were brought in for repair after 80,000 miles, but the new diesels and electric locomotives go 120,000, 125,000 or 130,000 miles before being brought in. The work is just not there.
My constituency was the cradle of the railway industry in Glasgow, with the ancient locomotive works of the old North British Locomotive Company, the London and North Eastern. When the steam locomotive died, my constituency died, except for the St. Rollox works, and the British Railways Board has spent well over £1 million modernising that factory. It is working considerably under capacity. The workers in my constituency are urging that they should be given more and more work.
While this is a decision for the British Railway Board, whichever way it goes, it is nevertheless the responsibility of the Government to see that there is alternative work in this area. My constituents in Glasgow, I am sure, would go as far as to say, "Keep Inverurie going until there is alternative work". My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade is present, and I remind her that the responsibility must rest with the Board of Trade and the Government to see that alternative work is taken to the north-east of Scotland. It is clear to us that all the repairs which are necessary in Scotland can be undertaken in the modern works at St. Rollox, and if a rational decision has to be taken—as was the case with the Upper Clyde shipbuilders—it is obvious what the decision will be. But it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that that part of the country is not left as desolate as was my constituency when the steam locomotive died.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: There have been disturbing rumours in recent weeks about the possible closure of the railway workshops in Inverurie, which are still known as the locomotive workshops, although, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), they have ceased to repair locomotives.

Mr. James Davidson: Not entirely.

Mr. Campbell: With the disappearance of the steam locomotives there is much less of that work.
The jobs of over 580 men are at stake. My hon. Friends and I, representing the north of Scotland, understand very well the anxiety of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. West and also the

activities which he has energetically pursued in recent weeks to forestall an unfortunate decision. The effects would be serious in Inverurie, but they would also be felt in a much wider area over the north of Scotland. Indeed the effects would be wide. There was an article in the Economist a short time ago drawing attention to the possibility of the closure of these works. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary observed that article, because it is a reflection of the importance of the works.

Mr. James Davidson: There was also an article in the Financial Times.

Mr. Campbell: This subject has been taken up by organs of the Press which specialise in economic and financial matters on a national basis.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West asked, in a very able speech, why should it be necessary for these works to be closed, bearing in mind what the Government said in their White Paper on the Scottish economy in 1966? There must be a need for work in repairing railway stock used in the north and east of Scotland. We shall wish to hear from the Minister why this possibility has arisen at all. Although I sympathise with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West that it would be a retrograde step to close these works simply to fill some empty space in the South. We want to hear what the reasons are if this decision is indeed impending.
One thing which has worried me is cases where British Railways have to take the preliminary decision. I recognise that they must take the preliminary decision on some of these matters, but it is for the Government to take the final decision. It is very difficult for us outside British Railways to know whether a particular works or a particular line is economical or not. If British Railways wish to close something they can so arrange affairs as to show that for a period of two or three years something is operating uneconomically. I have had suspicions in a number of cases of this kind.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must leave his suspicions for the moment. This is an Adjournment debate on the Inverurie Locomotive Works.

Mr. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was returning immediately going from the general to arrive at the particular. We from the outside cannot have all the facts and figures to show whether the works can in future be run economically, but from what has been said it appears that they can be. It was said in 1966. The danger is that British Railways may make an arbitrary decision because they want to sell a works and so arrange affairs to produce figures to show that the works are not economic. This is always the difficulty when we are dealing with a nationalised industry which has a monopoly.

Mr. James Davidson: I apologise for asking the hon. Member to give way a second time, but it would be appropriate to mention that when I went to see a member of the Board of British Railways, a member responsible for locomotive works, he confirmed that there is no locomotive works in Britain with lower costs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) started this debate earlier. He has exhausted his right to speak. He may, however, intervene briefly. Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Campbell: I think the hon. Member has made the point. I am glad that he was able to make the intervention because it was a point of substance in the argument I was making. It is extremely difficult for anyone outside British Railways over a period of three or four years to make a judgment, but the Government are in a position to make that judgment. This is a matter where the Government can look at all the facts and figures, economic as well as social. This is an important duty for the Government.

Mr. George Lawson: Will the hon. Member expand a little further on his assertion about the railways having a monopoly power? The railways cannot compel people to travel by rail. Will the hon. Member explain the point more fully?

Mr. Campbell: I do not think I can go far on that in view of what you said, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that only one concern is running the railways, the British Railways Board. If it decided for an administrative reason to close something it would be difficult for those

outside to get at the facts and figures to show whether a concern or a railway line could not be run economically. That is where the Government should come in to make sure that all the facts and figures and all the possibilities are investigated.
If it is found that this closure is unavoidable—which I hope is not the case—after looking at all the facts and figures, if the Government were to sanction this closure what would replace the locomotive works at Inverurie? I hope that the Government will watch very closely the whole situation and that such a closure will not take place unnecessarily. If it does we have to look to development assistance to bring some alternative industry to the area. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) mentioned this. The investment grant and the Regional Employment Premium apply only to manufacturing industry. "Manufacturing" is defined. Only certain industries can qualify for those grants. If a similar establishment were to move in and engage in repairing vehicles—let us say motor vehicles—it would no doubt be regarded as a service industry and would not be eligible for the grants.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, as the Government are prepared to spend so much money on incentives to encourage people to go to an area like Inverurie, they obviously would be looking for the type of firm which would employ skilled engineers. This must be our concern. We are rather given to believe that this would not be the attitude if the Conservatives were returned to power.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Lady indicates that she has misunderstood the issues. She has anticipated some of the points to which I was coming. The Labour Government abolished the system of investment allowances under which all kinds of industry were able to benefit. Further, equipment, including motor vehicles—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening with patience. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the threatened closure of Inverurie locomotive works.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is the question of what might replace the


works if it were to be closed that caused me to raise this point. The hon. Lady has raised the question of the types of development assistance which would bring various kinds of industry there. I was replying to that point.
The relevant point is that it is repair of railway vehicles which the present works engage in. If an industry of the same kind were to come in—repairing motor vehicles, say—it would not be eligible: or the grants which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South mentioned, Sir, when Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair—investment grants; nor would it be eligible for the R.E.P. Such equipment, which cannot be described as manufacturing, would not be eligible for investment grant, whereas such equipment, including motor vehicles, was eligible far investment allowances. Motor transport in the north of Scotland is essential to any industry which comes in to replace the Inverurie works if it has to be replaced. It is a vital matter where such great distances are involved.
If any question of closing the Works arises, the Government must first investigate and ensure that the decision to close or not to close is taken in the light of all the facts and prospects. From what we have learned about this Works and from what the Government said only two years ago, it is difficult to believe that a closure should be necessary now.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, West (Mr. James Davidson) made, as is his custom, a very eloquent speech. The House always listens attentively to everything the hon. Gentleman says. We sympathise with him in the matter of this threatened closure. As 580 men would lose their jobs, it becomes a social problem.
We are all conversant with the problem. Not long ago, the same situation arose week after week, month after month, in Lanarkshire. Consequent upon the Labour Government's policy, all the advance factories which have been built under this Government in my constituency now have tenants and are working to full capacity. It is a fallacy to suppose that, with nationalisation, we should have rationalisation. If the nationalised industries are to run effi-

ciently in the interests of the community as a whole, they must, like private enterprise, trim their sails and work on an economic basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), who spoke in the same eloquent fashion as did the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, strongly urged the retention of the locomotive works in his constituency, and it was obvious from all the information which he gave the House that rationalisation must take place in this industry.
I have implicit faith in what the Government are doing. In the development areas, we did not have skilled craftsmen for a long time, but now we have those skilled craftsmen because of the training which is being done in various parts of the country. Bearing in mind that there is depopulation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must not widen the debate. We are talking about the threatened closure of the Inverurie Locomotive Works.

Mr. Hamilton: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was carried away by my own eloquence. So inspired was I by the record of my Government that I went too far. [Laughter.] The House is a little amused at that, but the question of closing the Inverurie works is not something about which we should be facetious. I am speaking with deep sincerity. I am myself very much concerned now about a factory closure, also in a nationalised industry, as a result of which 283 of my trade union members will become redundant.
I recognise that the Closure of the Inverurie works would present a social problem. Only a few months ago, in the area for which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) speaks, I was concerned about the possibility of a closure. Fortunately, we managed to keep the factory in production, and there is now the chance that there will be a big expansion.
I sincerely hope that the points which have been made will be carefully noted by the Government and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. If she applies her mind to this problem as she has


applied her mind to similar problems in Lanarkshire, I am sure that the Inverurie works will, so to speak, find an industrialist to come in. We have the labour force at our disposal. If my hon. Friend does that, this Adjournment debate will have served a useful purpose.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) both on the speech which he made in opening the debate and on his good fortune not only in securing an Adjournment debate but on securing so generous an amount of time. Those of us who have applied, regretfully without success, for Adjournment debates will envy him and congratulate him on his success.
First, I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) in his excellent speech. The number of Members of all parties representing Scottish constituencies who are here tonight is itself noteworthy. Usually, we are accustomed to seeing only the Member raising the subject and the Minister who is to reply. The attendance here tonight is significant, and the reason that so many Members are present is that we are concerned not just about the closure of the Inverurie Locomotive Works but about the implications this question has for the way the Government are pursuing their policy in Scotland as a whole.
The subject my hon. Friend raised is one of concern for other Government Departments besides the Ministry of Transport. That concern is shown by the presence here—I am glad to see the hon. Lady—of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I saw in the Press the forceful comments of the chairman of the North-East of Scotland Consultative Group, a body appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to advise him on economic development in that region of Scotland.
What I criticise is the fact that possibilities—and here, fortunately, we are still dealing only with a possibility and not a fait accompli—of action being taken by a public industry under one Government Department, in this case responsible to the Ministry of Transport,

can cut right across the policy being pursued by both the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the well-being of Scotland as a whole. That is a serious criticism, applicable not only to Inverurie, of the way in which the Government are going about regional planning in Scotland. Presumably the question of the closure of Inverurie has not arisen overnight. Presumably it has been known within Government circles that it was at least being entertained as a possibility by British Rail. In that case, we are entitled to ask what steps have been taken by the Board of Trade in conjunction with the Scottish Office to look ahead to see what the future would be for this town and part of Scotland if the locomotive works were closed.
I have faced precisely the same situation in my constituency, where a matter subject to the control of the Minister of Transport and British Rail cuts right across what the local consultative group advising the Secretary of State for Scotland has to say about the closure of the railway line through the Borders between Edinburgh and Carlisle. In the case of both Inverurie and the Borders railway line there are the common features of an appointed body designed by the Government—and I give them credit for this—to reflect the wishes of the local people and advise on how economic development should proceed in parts of Scotland which were sadly negelected for far too long, giving that advice and then having it over-ruled. The economic group in the North-East of Scotland has expressed concern about what may happen to the locomotive works in Inverurie. In my case, the consultative group has had to express indignation and anger at what has actually happened. The two cases are in distinction, but the policy is the same.
Therefore, I hope that the Scottish Office, which I am sorry is not represented on the Front Bench, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport will act together for the welfare of Scotland as a whole, and that we shall not have a situation where the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office can be overruled by another Department. I address my remarks particularly to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who happens, fortunately, to be a Scottish Member. He should be very sensitive on this point, and I hope


that he will convey the views of the House and members of all parties from different parts of Scotland about our anxiety about this—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): rose—

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to reply, so I do not think that I need give way now. I want to finish very quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that tomorrow he and some civic leaders would present a petition to the House and a separate petition in Downing Street to the Prime Minister. This afternoon I and a dozen of my constituents presented a petition in Downing Street against the decision of the Ministry of Transport. Something that a housewife who organised the petition said when we got inside No. 10 struck me as very significant. When we handed over the petition to the Prime Minister's private secretary, she said, "It is just from the ordinary people." And it is just the ordinary people of Inverurie and Scotland as a whole who are outraged a: decisions which can over-ride the Scottish Office and the plans it has rightly made for the regeneration of parts of Scotland.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I did not hear the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), although I would like to have heard him. But I would not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) said—that we always listen to the hon. Gentleman with acute attention. Sometimes he has useful things to say but sometimes not.
I, too, like all my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House, have always been concerned with jobs. Indeed, a very large part of the movement of which I am part based itself on the demand for jobs. The right to work was an early argument of our movement, and we are concerned with jobs anywhere, in any part of Scotland, including Inverurie. Certainly, the situation at Inverurie clearly concerns us.
But it makes me more than a wee bit disturbed when I listen to the hypocritical statements made by right hon.

and hon. Members opposite. When did the Conservative and Liberal Parties base themselves on the contention that the State has a duty to ensure that jobs be provided irrespective of the social cost of the jobs?

Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Gentleman did not hear my speech. I say with the utmost conviction that it is precisely that sort of issue that brought me into politics. I regard this as the crunch in my constituency, and if your Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no Government.

Mr. Davidson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. If the Government are not prepared to intervene in this case, following the facts and figures given and the case made by myself and others, I do not know where they consider the watershed actually lies.

Mr. Lawson: My Government and my movement from the start have accepted this kind of responsibility. It is my Government and my movement which established the public enterprises which are so consistently attacked by right hon. and hon. Members of both parties opposite. They deride those enterprises when they do not make profits. They are regular in their attacks. Then they demand that these very enterprises provide services which will not make money.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we will now come to the Inverurie Locomotive Works.

Mr. Lawson: I understood that we were debating the Adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that on that Motion there is considerable latitude in what one can discuss.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, the hon. Gentleman is right. Anything is in order not involving legislation on the Adjournment debate. But it is the usual custom that we debate the subject which an hon. Member has raised, and this debate is on the threatened closure of the Inverurie Locomotive Works.

Mr. Lawson: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and keep myself to that subject, but the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David


Steel) has spoken of the Border railway and has talked of the great good of that railway to the people of the area. I am sure that you agree that the actions of the Government are very inter-related.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I let hon. Members stray occasionally for a short time, and the hon. Gentleman has himself strayed for a bit. I hope that he will come now to the Inverurie Works.

Mr. Lawson: I repeat, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken part in Adjournment debates for many years and have seen subject after subject raised and that my understanding is that one can raise anything on the Adjournment. We are discussing the Adjournment of the House, properly speaking, and not Inverurie, and my understanding is that anything can be raised except legislation, to which I am not referring. I am talking about the practice of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in constantly deriding what they call the incompetence and failure of nationalised industries while calling upon those industries to come to their assistance whenever they have some little local difficulty.
The Government have various means by which to assist areas like Inverurie. Factories are built in advance of demand in the hope that industry will follow. However, hon. Gentlemen opposite regularly ask how many such factories are standing empty, how long they have been empty, how much they have cost and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has ruled accurately for himself that he is in order in raising anything he likes on the Adjournment as long as it does not involve legislation. I ask him, however, to come to the subject which we are supposed to be debating.

Mr. Lawson: The subject concerns Inverurie and the threatened loss of jobs there. An appeal has been made to the Government to do what they can, and presumably the Government might intervene with the railways and say, "We hope that you will not close these works". Alternatively, they might say, "You shall not close them," or "If you do not close them we will subsidise them to a larger extent, as we have the Border railways." In the event of the Government not saying these things, a variety of actions can be

taken, including the establishment of advanced factories. Thus, my remarks are relevant to the subject.
Large parts of Scotland are development areas. It is, therefore, permissible for me to plead with the Minister to take action to assist in this matter, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would like to scrap this policy and base himself on the so-called growth point concept. I am speaking of the means available to the Government to help areas such as the one we are discussing. In many cases these means have sprung from the nature of the Government and the people they represent.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Is it not a fact that Inverurie could be a potential growth point?

Mr. Lawson: I am not aware that Inverurie was intended to be a growth point. When the growth point programme was introduced my constituency was split because of being a joint burgh, with one half becoming a growth point and the other half being left out. Remote areas like Inverurie and Invergordon did not enter into the growth point concept.
A transformation is being wrought in the North of Scotland. This part of the country is being reborn and a renaissance is taking place in Scotland because of the involvement of the Government and the multiplicity of methods which they are adopting. I would be the last to urge the Government to compel a nationalised industry, come what may, to run a line or continue a yard or workshop that is losing money. The nationalised industries are always being held up to criticism by hon. Gentlemen opposite for not making money.

Mr. James Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, which has only 31 minutes still to run.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend will be aware that because we are concerned with a nationalised industry in this case we are able to discuss the matter before closure decisions are taken.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend, who has great experience of these matters has


made an excellent point. If we were concerned with private enterprise, nobody would have had a chance to say a word before a decision was taken. It would be excellent if our proceedings could be televised so that people had a chance to see how differently hon. Gentlemen opposite speak on these subjects in the House and in the country. Outside Parliament they clamour for public expenditure to be cut. "Cut down expenditure3" they cry. and at the same time they ask for extra public expenditure because it happens to suit them. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that my hon. Friends and I have reason to be annoyed.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I have listened to every word of the debate, which is more than can be said of a lot of hon. Members opposite who have been filling in time, while those who genuinely want to speak on behalf of the small town of Inverurie which is facing a very serious problem have been waiting. I am certain from my own experience that rumours always precede closures. It is very rare that the closure is prevented. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) for raising this matter in such a forthright way. I am sure that all of us hope that he will be successful.
We must be concerned that the Economic Planning Consultative Committee and, presumably, the Scottish Economic Planning Council have not been able to get definite assurances from the Railways Board about this most important works. This is a sad indication that these bodies set up by the Government are not being as effective as they ought to be. Because I have had a parallel situation in my constituency I want to press upon the Government the importance of time and make a very strong plea for delay over this decision.
It is absolutely essential, unless the Government will immediately say that the works will be kept open for a

reasonable period of time. In my constituency a coal mine employing 400 miners was closed recently and there were the same effects as there may be in Inverurie, with a large number of men unemployed in a relatively small community. I know the subsequent effects. This is where we need time. While we are in the fortunate position of having advance factories available it takes time to provide new tenants. I wish to pay a generous tribute to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for the very strong efforts that she is making to finalise plans to bring new industry to these factories, and I hope that we shall soon have some news.
But if I was to say to the Board of Trade that I would open a new works in Inverurie today it would inevitably take some months, perhaps even a year before anything could happen on the ground and I could employ a substantial number of men. This is why it is important, that every day counts and why delay is essential. I make one plea, which will probably send the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) through the roof, and that is for a flexibility in designating special development areas. I have no doubt that in the mining areas which have been designated in this way the extra incentive available is a big help in attracting industry.
It is important to keep a differential between areas which need special help such as Inverurie may need, and the general run of the development areas, in the same way as there used to be a differential between the development districts and the rest of Scotland. This is why I hope that the Board of Trade will consider greater flexibility in applying the special development grants for an area such as Inverurie, although there may be no coal mines anywhere near it. I make this plea for time in the hope that the Government will consider these two points in relation to bringing industry to the area.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I apologise to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) for not being present at the beginning of this debate. I wish that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) had not spoken with a sneer when he drew attention to that fact. The previous


business of the House came to a quick conclusion, and for the hon. Gentleman's information, may I say that many of us were at a meeting discussing precisely this point and other Scottish affairs. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not listening at the moment, but I wish that he would have a sense of responsibility.
I take strong exception to the extreme language of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). To use language which presumably was used in 10 Downing Street and to say that someone was outraged by the overriding of the Scottish Office and to relate that to this matter is typical of the irresponsibility of the hon. Gentleman. His arrogance is matched only by his opportunism. He has no responsibility for anything other than being reelected.

Mr. James Hamilton: Very true.

Mr. Brown: It is amazing for the hon. Gentleman to use language like that when we are trying to draw attention to something which affects many of us.

Mr. David Steel: To what language is the hon. Gentleman objecting? I referred to the fact that a petition was handed over and the words used by the petitioner that it came from ordinary folk. I do not see anything outrageous in that. I am sorry to see that the Labour Party has come to this pass.

Mr. Brown: I leave hon. Members to judge for themselves.
I presume that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will reply to the debate. I dare not take too long or my mother-in-law will give me hell. That is a private joke.
It has been said that there was a long-term use for the locomotive works. I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that that was the intention of British Railways. We can overdo the propaganda. We want to ascertain the basis for the assumption that there would be continuing employment in this area and what circumstances have arisen which have made it a wrong assumption. I have no doubt that it was made with the best of intentions.
Apart from the natural concern of a local Member, we are all concerned

about this matter. The political implications of it far outweigh the social tragedy of the people of Inverurie. Part of the irresponsibility to which I have referred lies in using a local situation to highlight the transformation which is taking place in a basic industry, namely, the railways. The railways are the largest employer of labour in North-East Scotland with the exception of agriculture. Together with the Post Office, they form about all the employment that there is for people in this area.
What are the possibilities of employment and not just in Inverurie? Is there any chance of encouraging industry to go to Aberdeen, which is only 16 miles away? Let us consider the practical possibilities. In the meantime, if the locomotive works have to be closed, what steps can be taken to postpone the closure? At the moment, I am serving on the Committee which is considering the Post Office Bill and there is constant pleading from hon. Members opposite that publicly-owned bodies should exercise commercial judgment. They cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Dumfries says that extra money and grants are needed when his leader is going round the country saying that they should all be eliminated.

Mr. Monro: No.

Mr. Brown: All right. We will argue this some other time, but to the best of my knowledge Inverurie was never included in any Toothill Report.

Mr. James Davidson: May I make just two points? First, I am well aware of the very real concern of hon. Members opposite, and I particularly refer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) who all along has shown very great interest in this threatened closure. The second point I would make, because it was missed by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) when he spoke, is that that I have stressed and was stressing the extreme efficiency of this works and the viability of the works. That is my main reason for pleading that they should be allowed to stay open.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is making the point I was just coming to. Is there any opportunity within British Rail's programme, any short-term way, to ensure


continued employment at Inverurie—even on a short-term basis? I know this affects St. Rollox in which I have a constituency interest; although it is in Springburn, nevertheless the majority of the workers there live in my constituency. However, even if there is an inevitability about the closure at Inverurie, though I know a decision has not yet been made, I ask, is there any other additional work, signalling contracts, or anything to do with electrification, any work, that can be given to Inverurie on a short-term basis to minimise the impact of the closure, if the works are to be closed?
Of course, railway workshops cannot just be adapted to any purpose, and one would not want to spend a lot of money on works which are to be closed, but I hope that there is some possibility, even on social grounds, for action, by a Government sympathetic to such aims and objects, for it is only by a Government who are, that we will get any action in this area. I hope very much to get from my hon. Friend tonight, if not good news, some news to give us some encouragement.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I am very glad, as representing a constituency neighbouring that of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) to have the opportunity to intervene, very briefly, in this debate. The whole standard of the debate, with one or two exceptions, has reflected the great concern which is felt in all parts of the House, regardless of political party, about this threatened closure at Inverurie.
I would say one thing to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), whose speech was not worthy of his usual standard of speaking in this House. If we had television in this House, that would have been one way of making sure that the Labour Party would get very few votes in Aberdeenshire at the next election.
I would answer some hon. Members opposite who come from central Scotland, that it is all very well for them to speak in terms of advance factories being filled, but in the north-east, in Aberdeenshire, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said, those factories have not been filled, and that is why we are

so anxious to hold on to what we have got. It is simply not the fact, as the hon. Member for Motherwell put it, that this is a little local difficulty. On the contrary, it is much greater and it is far more worrying than that, because in the north-east of Scotland industry is extremely narrowly based, and the loss of a number of jobs of this sort would be absolutely disastrous and catastrophic for us in the north-east. More than that, these works are an extremely important section of the engineering industry, and by losing these works we should lose trades of a kind we in the north-east need so much.
It is these reasons, the narrowness of the base of our industry in the north-east, and the difficulty of atttracting new industry there, which make it absolutely imperative that the Government consider the matter sympathetically. I hope that tonight the Government will not hide behind the fact that the Gaskin Plan is about to be published early in the new year. There have already been leaks about the Gaskin Plan that Inverurie is to be a growth point in the north-east of Scotland, and it would be absolutely tragic if this were threatened by the closing of these works.
Finally, if the Government, by failing to take action, create unemployment in North-East Scotland those who come to and live in the north east will regard as most insincere the Government's professions of wanting to develop industry in this part of Scotland.

10.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): We have had an exceptionally good and an exceptionally long Adjournment debate, and I fully recognise the importance of the matter we have been discussing. The fact that my hon. and right hon. Friends who are sitting on the Front Bench represent the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of State for Scotland, shows how seriously the Government take this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was completely in order, politically speaking, in what he said about hon. Members opposite. I do not feel that some of their speeches have been helpful for Inverurie or for the North-East. This cannot be


said about the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), whose speech was most feeling and showed great concern. We all know how he feels on this matter, and in our meetings we have tried to convey that we have much the same feelings as he has.
We are discussing the future of an establishment which provides one-fifth of the total jobs in the town and one half of the total employment in manufacturing industries. The hon. Member has done his constituency a great service by bringing the situation so forcefully to the attention of Parliament and of British Railways, who will ultimately have to take the decision affecting the future of the Inverurie workshops or others in their organisation.
Hon. Members opposite will remember the long days and nights we spent not long ago on the Transport Bill, and they are being nothing less than hypocritical if they imagine that anyone but British Railways have the right to make this decision. I was especially concerned about the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) who, more than anyone present on the other side, knows full well the great fight which he and his party put up against the possibility of British Railways being able to expand or hold the situation in their workshops because of Clause 48 which was introduced by the Government.
I emphasise that we are not discussing a situation in which British Railways have already taken a decision. They have made it clear to the men's representatives that before any decision is taken British Railways will discuss with the unions in the New Year the future of the whole workshops organisation.
We must look at how Inverurie fits into the railway workshop organisation. The railway industry is now, and has been for many years, in a state of flux. Unless it succeeds in adapting itself to the world of today it will be an industry without a secure future. This has been clear for a long time, and the industry has been making tremendous efforts to adapt itself. The Transport Act has given British Railways the opportunity to make good, yet it was opposed tooth and nail as a railwaymen's charter by the party opposite. We now find that it is

a working charter in which the railways, if they are efficient, if they can do the job properly, will make good. It is merely a possibility that they can do this and, as has been said from the Box opposite, it is possibly the last chance that British Railways will have.
This involves a tough financial remit which removes the prop of general deficit grant which they previously had and puts British Railways from the beginning of 1969 in the position of having to sink or swim by their own efforts. The railways' fight to adapt to change has inevitably meant upheaval for railwaymen on a scale unknown to workers in many other industries. In the period since 1963 the total railway labour force has fallen by about a quarter.
This is important in regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), because only in British Railways and the National Coal Board has there been anything like this scale of redundancies with this smoothness. The nationalised industries have made a special job of this, and, I think, have won a special case in British industrial history by their treatment of workers.
The railway workshops have taken a full share of the burden of streamlining the industry. The reorganisation scheme prepared in 1962 involved a reduction in the number of main workshops from 36 to 16 and a reduction in the labour force from 68,000 to 39,000. This plan was implemented from 1962 to 1967 and it is worth recalling that the impact of this run-down in Scotland was relatively small. One small workshop was closed in Scotland, one in Wales and 14 in England. The Scottish workshop labour force was reduced by 9 per cent., while the reduction in the organisation as a whole was about 32 per cent.
We should not forget, also, that, in recent years, the impact of changing demand has affected those private firms and their employees concerned with manufacture, repair and supply for the railway industry. Nevertheless, the 1962 plan for the railway workshops did not involve merely wielding the axe. About £16 million was spent on the modernisation and re-equipment of the remaining workshops.
But that plan was prepared six years ago. Much has happened since then, and


British Railways would be failing in its duty if it did not keep the workshops' organisation under constant review. It could not in 1962, nor could it now, give any absolute undertaking that any particular workshop would escape the consequences of whatever reviews proved necessary.

Mr. Dewar: Perhaps it would be convenient in this context if my hon. Friend could say something about the statement referred to in the White Paper with regard to 1965–70.

Mr. Carmichael: The same applies there. Even in that period, there will be a great change in the railway pattern. Something which is apparent to us, particularly in this Ministry, is the problem of controlling the number of motor cars—a proposal which the House and most people would oppose. But that is part of the problem. We cannot have 10½ million cars on the road, with all the buses and the charabancs, with the same railway system of 30 years ago. The increase in the number of personal means of transport has been alarming in the last few years. Therefore, even in a short time, in transport terms, great changes can take place.
Many things have happened to alter the tasks placed on the workshops. The route pattern and the nature of train operations are not static. Modern locomotives and rolling stock require less maintenance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), a railway workshop engineer himself, has pointed out. Changes in techniques have changed the workload on the railway workshops and less maintenance is required than was required by the predecessors of the present diesel and electric engines.
Changes such as this are bound to affect not only the volume and nature of the load on the workshop organisation but also the geographical distribution of the load, the pattern of the workshops and the facilities which can most economically meet the demands on the whole organisation. The Railways Board must keep abreast of developments—

Mr. lames Davidson: Surely, in the two years since January 1966, there could not have been such a major change as to alter completely the long-term future of the Inverurie works.

Mr. Carmichael: What I was trying to say to the hon. Gentleman was that one

of the things which has given impetus to the necessity for the railways to look very closely at their financing was the Transport Act. Some hon. Members in the Liberal Party supported that Act in part, but they did not support those parts of it which will, perhaps, help Inverurie. I am thinking of Section 48—

Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Member is wrong.

Mr. Carmichael: I would be surprised if I were wrong in this, and if the Liberal Party did not oppose the possibility of the railway workshops doing this work.
British Railways are the first to acknowledge the valuable contribution which Inverurie makes. I understand that the labour force there have a fine tradition of service and are second to none in their skill and their willingness to meet any demands based upon them.
It has been argued that there are two strong reasons why, whatever happens to other workshops, Inverurie should continue. It has been claimed that Inverurie is more efficient than other workshops, and that hourly earnings are 11d. per hour less than at certain other railway workshops. I cannot go into this kind of comparison today, because one has to be sure that like is being compared with like. One has to consider different bonus schemes, different amounts of overtime working, and so on. Moreover, one has to consider total costs, not merely labour costs. These are matters for British Railways, and I understand that they are taking them into account in their consideration of the possible closure of Inverurie workshops. They must also, however, take into account such other factors as the geographical position of Inverurie, and of all the other workshops in relation to the main centres of railway activity. They have to consider the geographical centres of the railways, and where the bulk of the railways are, obviously that is where it will be most economical to do the repairs.
The primary question which British Railways have to consider is whether the whole organisation could be made more efficient by altering the allocation of work, and perhaps by reducing the capacity at some points and enlarging it at others. In considering all these factors, however, British Railways must, like any


other responsible employers, have regard not only to their own interests, including those of their own employees throughout the organisation, but also to the wider social and economic consequences of whatever changes they might have in mind, and I have tried to show that the nationalised industries have a better record in this respect than private industry has.
I can assure the House that British Railways are taking all those considerations very carefully into account before putting any proposals to the unions in the New Year. It is right, of course, that the whole Inverurie community should do whatever it feels necessary to bring its side of the case to the notice of British Railways, but I am sure that nobody with the interest of the town at heart would want to give the impression that theirs is a battle which has already been fought and lost. Nor would they, I am sure, want to give the impression that theirs is a town so wedded to the railway workshops that they could not contemplate a future in which their activities became more diversified.
Inverurie is within the Aberdeen travel to work area, and I understand that some scores of people travel from Aberdeen to Inverurie every day. The unemployment rate is better, but I appreciate the problem of migration. In statistical terms unemployment is considerably lower than the national average, and the position there is certainly better than it is in areas such as my own.
If a decision about the future of the Board's workshop facilities in a particular area is not a matter of management for British Railways, at what point are we prepared to draw the line around management's responsibility? When we are discussing other matters hon. Gentlemen opposite always say that we should let managers and businessmen get on with the job. Here is a point at which we drew the line, and the House decided on this line. We decided that the day-today responsibility should be the management's, and I cannot see how we can avoid leaving a fundamental decision such as this to the managers of British Railways who have a responsibility to balance their books at the end of the day.
We really would be moving outside the field of practicalities if we tried on the

one hand to place on the Board a statutory duty of the very demanding kind Parliament has placed upon it, while on the other reserving to the Government the right to dictate how they should deploy their own resources. But this is not to say that the Government have no concern with the situation, and I think that my hon. Friends who have been here all night have in some way signified that.
Our first priority is to ensure that British Railways are taking all factors into account in reviewing their workshops organisation. It is, of course, of crucial importance that they pay full regard to the Government's regional policies, and in particular to the need to maintain unemployment in the development areas. We are satisfied that the Board is giving full weight to all these considerations.
Secondly, we have made it our concern to ensure that in its planning the Board is not inhibited by unreasonable restrictions on its ability to make use of its skills and resources. This we have done in Section 48 of the 1968 Act, and this is a help to British Railways. This was denied to them in 1962 Act, and was bitterly opposed by the Opposition during the passage of this year's Bill through Parliament. Section 48 requires the Board to satisfy itself that it can use its new powers without detriment to its main duties, and Section 134 requires it to act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. The Board could not rush into new activities in circumstances which conflicted with those basic obligations.
Another point of direct concern to us is that in circumstances where redundancies seem possible British Railways should act on the lines recommended to all employers by the First Secretary last summer, after detailed discussions with the C.B.I, the T.U.C. the nationalised industries. The practice up to now has been rather better than that. Managements are advised that while the official decision to close a factory must be taken by managements—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.